Pages 1--327 from Appendix F

APPENDIX F TECHNICAL REPORT AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
December 1999
SCH NO 98101053

Prepared for
COUNTY OF ORANGE MCAS El Toro Local Redevelopment Authority

10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana California 92701
714 834 3000
Contact Bryan Speegle

Prepared by
LSA ASSOCIATES P D CONSULTANTS 1
1 Page 2 3
MCAS EL TORO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FIR No 573
Appendix F
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT

Prepared for
The County of Orange MCAS El Toro Local Redevelopment Authority
Master Development Program

Prepared by
LSA Associates Inc One Park Plaza Suite 500
Irvine CA 92614

With assistance from
CH2M Hill

December 1999 2
2 Page 3 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 O Introduction 1
2.0 Proposed Project And Alternatives 8 3.0 Existing Air Quality Setting 9

3 1 Summary of Conclusions in EIR No 563 9 3.1.1 Significant Effects that Cannot be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance 9
3.1.2 Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance 1 0 3.1.3 Final EIR No 563 Mitigation Measures 1 0
3.1.4 Final EIR No 563 Supplemental Analysis 11 32 1 3 Environmental Setting Existing Conditions
3 .2 .1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 1 3 3.2.2 Local Ambient Air Quality 1 5
3 .2 .3 Local Air Quality Monitoring Data 1 8 3.2.4 Meteorology 1 8
3.2.5 Air Quality Management 2 6 3.2.6 State Implementation Plan Budget 2 7
3.2.7 Existing Emissions Inventory 2 7 3.2.8 Local Air Quality 3 6
4.0 Methodology 5 0 41 Methodology for Construction Related Emissions 5 0
4 .1 .1 Construction Equipment Emissions 5 0 4.1.2 Transport of Materials and Employees 5 1
4.1.3 Fugitive Dust 5 1 42 Methodology for Operations Related Regional Emissions 5 1
43 5 2 Methodology for Local Emissions Inventory 4.3.1 Aircraft Emissions 5 2
4.3.2 Ground Support EquipmenuAuxiliary Power Units Emissions 5 2 4.3.3 Natural Gas Combustion and Electrical Usage Emissions 5 3
4.3.4 Fuel Storage Facilities Emissions 5 3 4.3.5 Motor Vehicle Emissions 5 4
4.3.6 Total Site Emissions 5 4 44 Methodology for Local Pollutant Concentrations 5 5
4.4.1 Background Concentrations 5 5 4.4.2 On and Off Airport Concentrations 5 5
4.4.3 Total Concentrations 5 5 45 Methodology for AQMP Consistency 5 5
510 Thresholds of Significance 5 7 5 1 Thresholds for Construction Emissions 5 7
52 Thresholds for Operational Emissions 5 7 610 Project Impacts 5 9
61 Construction Impacts 5 9 6.1.1 Emissions from Construction Traffic and Equipment Exhaust 5 9
6.1.2 Fugitive Dust 6 2 6.1.3 Asbestos Removal 6 5

County of Orange EIRNo 573 ii Air Quality Technical Report 3
3 Page 4 5
62
63
64 l
65 l
66

67

70
7 1 l

72
73
74

80
90
91

Regional Air Quality Impacts 65 6.2.1 Aircraft Emissions 66
6.2.2 Ground Support Equipment Auxiliary Power Units 69 6.2.3 Natural Gas Consumption and Electricity Usage 72
6.2.4 Fuel Storage and Dispensing 72 6.2.5 Other Stationary Sources 77
6.2.6 Directly Generated Motor Vehicle Emissions 77
6.2.7 Regional Motor Vehicle Emissions 82
6.2.8 Total Emissions Directly Emitted 84 6.2.9
Regional Emission Inventory 88 6.2.10 Air Toxics 101

6.2.11 Odor 101 Local Air Quality Impacts 101
6.3.1 Local Air Quality Impacts Due to Motor Vehicles 1 0 2 6.3.2 Local Air Quality Impacts Due to Aircraft 1 3 5
Compliance With Air Quality Planning 152 6.4.1 Consistency with AQMP 152
6.4.2 Conformity with State Implementation Plan SIP 154
Cumulative Impacts 1 5 5 6.5.1 Potential Cumulative Impacts Related to Air Quality 155

Potential Project Emissions Reductions 1 5 6 6.6.1 Potential GSE Emissions Reductions 1 5 6
6,6.2 Potential Emissions Reductions From Fueling Facilities 1 5 9 Summary of Air Quality Impacts 1 5 9
6 .7 .1 Short Term Construction Air Quality Impacts 159 6.7.2 Local Air Quality Impacts 1 6 0
6.7.3 Regional Air QuaIity Impacts 1 6 0 6.7.4 Summary 161
Mitigation Measures 1 6 2 Final EIR No 563 Mitigation Measures 1 6 2
7.1.1 Construction Emissions 1 6 4 7.1.2 Regional Emissions 1 6 6
7.1.3 Local Pollutant Concentrations 1 6 8 Additional Mitigation Measures 168
Mitigation Measures Considered and Rejected 1 6 9 Potential Project Emissions Reductions With Implementation of the Mitigation
Measures 171 7.4.1 Construction Emissions 171
7.4.2 Regional Emissions 171 7.4.3 Local Concentrations 173
Level of Significance After Mitigation 174 References 1 7 5
Persons Contacted 1 7 7

County of Orange EIR No 573 iii Air Quality Technical Report 4
4 Page 5 6
Table 39 Year 2005 Alternative B Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS 1 1 0 Table 40 Year 2005 Alternative B Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon
MonoxideConcentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS 111
Table 41 Year 2010 No Project Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS 1 1 2 Table 42 Year 2010 No Project Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon
Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS 113
Table 43 Year 2010 Alternative B Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS 1 1 4 Table 44 Year 2010 Alternative B Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon
Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Wurst Level of Service LOS 115
Table 45 Year 2015 No Project Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS 1 1 6 Table 46 Year 2015 No Project Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon
Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS 1 1 7
Table 47 Year 2015 Alternative B Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS 118 Table 48 Year 2015 Alternative B Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon
Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS 119
Table 49 Year 2020 No Project Predicted Eight How Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS 1 2 0 Table 50 Year 2020 No Project Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon
Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS 121
Table 5 1 Year 2020 Alternative B Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and WorFt
Level of Service LOS 122 Table 52 Year 2020 Alternative B Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon
Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS 123
Table 53 Year 2020 Alternative A Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS C 124

County of Orange EIR No 573 VI Air Quality Technical Report 5
5 Page 6 7
Table 25 Energy Consumption Emissions Pounds Day 7 3 Table 26 Fuel Storage and Dispensing Emissions Pounds Day 7 5
Table 27 Air Pollutant Emissions Vehicular Traffic Pounds Day John Wayne Airport 79 Table 28 Air Pollutant Emissions Vehicular Traffic Pounds Day Orange
County International 8 0 Table 29 Air Pollutant Emissions Vehicular Traffic Pounds Day Both Airports 81
Table 30A Regional Vehicular Traffic Tons Day Emissions I 8 3 Table 30B Regional Vehicular Traffic Emissions Pounds Day 8 3
Table 3 1 Total Project Emission Inventory pounds per day unless noted 8 5 Table 32A Regionwide Emissions Inventory 2020 Proposed Project No Project Pounds
Day Unless Noted 9 0 Table 32B Regionwide Emissions Inventory Pounds Day Unless Noted 91
Table 32C Regionwide Emissions Inventory 2005 Proposed Project No Project
Pounds Day UnIess Noted 9 3 Table 32D Regionwide Emissions Inventory 2010 Proposed Project No Project

Pounds Day Unless Noted 9 4 Table 32E Regionwide Emissions Inventory 2015 Proposed Project No Project
Pounds Day Unless Noted 9 5 Table 32F Regionwide Emissions Inventory Alternative A 2020 Pounds Day
Unless Noted 9 6 Table 32G Regionwide Emissions Inventory Alternative F 2020 Pounds Day
Unless Noted 9 7 Table 32H Regionwide Emissions Inventory Alternative G 2020 Pounds Day
UnIess Noted 9 8 Table 321 Regionwide Emissions Inventory Alternative H 2020 Pounds Day
Unless Noted 9 9 Table 325 Regionwide Emissions Inventory Alternative I 2020 Pounds Day
Unless Noted 1 0 0 Table 33 Year 1998 Plus Alternative B Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon
Monoxide Concentrations for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS I 1 0 4
Table 34 Year 1998 Plus Alternative B Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentrations for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS 1 0 5 Table 35 Year 1998 Plus ETRPA Nonaviation Plan Predicted One Hour Ambient
Carbon Monoxide Concentrations for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS 1 0 6
Table 36 Year 1998 Plus ETRPA Nonaviation Plan Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentrations for Intersections with the Highest Volume and
Worst Level of Service LOS 1 0 7 Table 37 Year 2005 No Project Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon
Monoxide Concentrations for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS 1 0 8
Table 38 Year 2005 No Project Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS 1 0 9

County of Orange EIR No 573 1 Air Quality Technical Report 6
6 Page 7 8
Table 39 Year 2005 Alternative B Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS 1 1 0 Table 40 Year 2005 Alternative B Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon
Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS 111
Table 41 Year 2010 No Project Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS 1 1 2 Table 42 Year 2010 No Project Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon
Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS 113
Table 43 Year 2010 Alternative B Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS 1 1 4 Table 44 Year 2010 Alternative B Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon
Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS 115
Table 45 Year 2015 No Project Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS 1 1 6 Table 46 Year 20 15 No Project Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon
Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS 1 1 7
Table 47 Year 2015 Alternative B Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS 1 1 8 Table 48 Year 2015 Alternative B Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon
Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS 1 1 9
Table 49 Year 2020 No Project Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS 1 2 0 Table 50 Year 2020 No Project Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon
Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS 121
Table 5 1 Year 2020 Alternative B Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Sewice LOS 1 2 2 Table 52 Year 2020 Alternative B Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon
Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS 123
Table 53 Year 2020 Alternative A Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS 1 2 4

County of Orange EIR No 573 vi Air Quality Technical Report 7
7 Page 8 9
Table 54 Year 2020 Alternative A Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS 125 Table 55 Year 2020 Alternative C Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon
Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS 1 2 6
Table 56 Year 2020 Alternative C Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS 1 2 7 Table 57 Year 2020 Alternative F Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon
Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume md Worst Level of Service LOS 128
Table 58 Year 2020 Alternative F Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS 1 2 9 Table 59 Year 2020 Alternative G Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon
Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS 1 3 0
Table 60 Year 2020 Alternative G Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst
Level of Service LOS 131 Table 61 Year 2020 ETRPA Non Aviation Plan Predicted One Hour Ambient
Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS 1 3 2
Table 62 Year 2020 ETRPA Non Aviation Plan Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration fur Intersections with the Highest Volume and
Worst Level of Service LOS 133 Table 63 Existing Conditions Plus Proposed Project 2020 Pollutant
Concentrations JWA Worst Case Operations and Meteorology 1 4 0 Table 64 Existing Conditions Plus Proposed Project 2020 Pollutant
Concentrations OCX Worst Case Operations and Meteorology 141 Table 65 2010 Proposed Project Alternative B Pollutant Concentrations JWA
Worst Case Operations and Meteorology 1 4 2 Table 66 2010 Proposed Project Alternative B Pollutant Concentrations OCX
q y ~Jpe jn g IO f f i l 1 93 t R 3
Table 67 2020 Proposed Project Alternative B Pollutant Concentrations JWA Worst Case Operations and Meteorology 1 4 4

Table 68 2020 Proposed Project Alternative B Pollutant Concentrations OCX Worst Case Operations and Meteorology 145
Table 69 2020 No Project Alternative E Pollutant Concentrations JWA Worst Case Operations and Meteorology 1 4 6
Table 70 2020 Alternative F Pollutant Concentrations JWA Worst Case Operations and Meteorology 1 4 7
Table 71 2020 Alternative G Pollutant Concentrations JWA Worst Case Operations and Meteorology 148
Table 72 Potential GSE Emissions Reductions Pounds Day 158

County of Orange EIR No 573 wii Air Quality Technical Report 8
8 Page 9 10
Table 73 Potential 2020 Proposed Project Alternative B GSE Emissions Reductions Pounds Day 1 5 9
Table 74 Potential Project Emissions Reductions pounds Per Day Unless Noted 172

F A EDMS Mudel Printouts Summary Reports F B Construction Assumptions And Construction Emission Calculation
F C Annual Airport Operations at OCX 2020 Alternative B F D Airport Emissions Assumptions for EDMS Model
F E Energy Consumption Emissions Calculation F F GSE Emissions Reduction
F G Toxic Air Contaminant Health Risk Assessment to be provided

County of Change EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 9
9 Page 10 11
1.0 8 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this technical report is to present the methodology and analysis of air quality impacts
associated with the Proposed Project A copy of the Air Quality Modeling Protocol was submitted to and reviewed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMD

and meetings were held between the County and SCAQMD to discuss the Protocol According to discussions
during these meetings the approach used in this air quality report including the models methodologies emission budgets and AQMPs used has the concurrence of the

SCAQMD
The Proposed Project has been defined as an Airport System Master Plan that includes a Master Plan for the development and operation of a commercial airport at the site of MCAS El Toro
OCX and an Airport Master Plan or Master Plan Update for John Wayne Airport Orange
County SNA or JWA Figure 1 depicts the project's regional location

This report provides

the source of information used l
the models used l
the methodologies used and l
the emissions budgets and Air Quality Management Plans AQMPs that were used to assess the impact of the project and prepare the consistency determination

Air quality impacts associated with the Proposed Project were quantified using the FAA's
Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System EDMS Version 3.11 a U S Environmental Protection Agency EPA approved model for airport operational emissions Other latest

versions of EPA and California Air Resource Board ARB approved models such as URBEMIS7G for regional land use related vehicular trips emissions or urban emissions
CAL3QHC for local CO hot spot analysis EMFAC7F vehicle emission factors for local CO hot spot analysis and EMFAC7G vehicle emission factors for regional emissions calculation or
emission factors were used to quantify surface traffic regional and local emissions In addition emissions associated with project related construction activity were estimated based on emission
factors published by the EPA and the SCAQMD and the construction information available at this stage of the planning process

In evaluating the environmental consequences of the proposed airport at the El Toro site
consideration was given to the air quality effects from both a local and regional perspective Local air quality is determined by the emissions from sources that are emitted directly upwind

Examples of local air quality are the pollutant concentrations near an intersection and the concentrations near the ends of the airport runways Local air quality is a result of primary
pollutants that are directly emitted into the atmosphere rather than pollutants like ozone which is formed through chemical reactions For purposes of compliance with State and federal clean
air requirements regional air emissions are also very important For purposes of air quality the term air basin describes a region that shares the same regional air quality and has geographical
proximity and topographical features that create interdependent air quality conditions throughout

County of Orange EIR No 573 1 Air Quality Technical Report 10
10 Page 11 12
Los Angeles County
0
0

SOURCE LSA Associates Inc
scale in Miles

C o u n t y of Orange Figure 1
Project Location Map 11
11 Page 12 13
the basin area This concept and the relevant federal and State air quality regulations plans and policies implicitly recognize this interdependence and the need to reduce pollutants on a
regional basis The South Coast Air Basin is comprised of Orange County non desert portions of Los Angeles San Bernardino and Riverside counties The following summarizes the
conclusions of the air quality analysis
l Project Construction Impacts on Air Quality The Proposed Project under each
development scenario would result in temporary significant and unavoidable construction air quality impacts Most criteria pollutant emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD

for construction would be exceeded during the project's peak construction years second through fourth years in a five year period for each of the four phases except SO NOx
emission thresholds 100 pounds per day would be exceeded most of the time except the fifth year of each construction phase PM10 emissions threshold would be exceeded most of
the time when emissions from equipment exhaust are combined with fugitive dust generated by grading or soil disturbance Emissions of CO and ROC would exceed the emissions
thresholds during the project's peak construction years but would be below the emissions thresholds during off peak years All feasible and reasonable mitigation measures have been
proposed to reduce these significant construction impacts However the significant construction impacts cannot be mitigated to a level below the level of significance in any of
the phasing years
l Project Impacts on Local Air Quality The Proposed Project would not result in
exceedances of either the California ambient air quality standards AAQS or the National AAQS at most of the receptor site locations under any of the development scenarios There

would be one exceedance of the federal annual arithmetic mean AAM standard for nitrogen dioxide NO2 projected at the Irvine Transportation Center The projected exceedance
would occur sometime after the year 2015 This projected exceedance was based upon an even split of the use of Runway 34L and Runway 34R for the aircraft take offs to the north
By achieving a percentage of Runway 34 departures that would be sufficiently greater than 50 percent of such departures occurring on Runway 34R from and after the end of Phase 2 of
the project 2010 this significant impact could be mitigated to a level below the level of significance Therefore with the implementation of appropriate airport operational
mitigation procedures the Proposed Project would not result in significant local air quality impacts under any of the development scenarios

The Proposed Project would not result in CO hot spots at intersections in the project vicinity under any of the development scenarios The Proposed Project when added to the Existing
Conditions 1998 roadway network and traffic conditions would continue to have two intersections in the project vicinity exposed to eight hour CO concentrations exceeding the
State and federal standards However this exceedance is due primarily to high ambient eight hour CO concentrations monitored at the Central Orange County Monitoring Station
The Proposed Project would nut increase the frequency or severity of the exceedance Therefore the Proposed Project would not result in any significant local air quality impacts
under any of the development scenarios

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 12
12 Page 13 14
l Project Impacts on Regional Air Quality The Proposed Project 2005 2010 2015 and
2020 plus existing conditions 1998 when compared to existing conditions 1998 would result in exceedances of all criteria pollutants CO NOx ROC and particulate matter

PM10 Three of these increases CO NOx and PM10 would exceed the operational thresholds established by the SCAQMD Mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce
the significant regional air quality impacts These measures include measures that have been required in pr incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant
regional air quality impacts and measures which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies including the SCAQMD the ARB and the EPA In effect
mitigating regulations programs and foreseeable technology improvements which will be implemented over the next 10 to 20 years by agencies other than the County including
SCAQMD ARB and EPA will reduce fixture pollutant levels in the Basin with or without the Proposed Project With implementation of these mitigation measures the significant
regional air quality impacts can be mitigated to a level below the level of significance under any of the development scenarios

The finding of significance prior to mitigation may overstate the air quality impacts of the Proposed Project fur several reasons Emissions generated in the air basin have been steadily
decreasing and are projected by the SCAQMD's 1994 and 1997 AQMP's and the SIP to continue to decrease By combining existing regional emissions with projected future
emissions the analysis dues not take into account these assumptions made by the SCAQMD ARB and EPA that pollutant sources creating the existing emissions will become steadily
cleaner over the years that motor vehicles operating in 20 years will be substantially cleaner than today's vehicles and that industrial pollutant sources will continue to be regulated and
continue to become cleaner as less polluting technologies continue to become available that replace today's more polluting technologies In addition this approach overlooks studies
conducted by the Southern California Association of Governments SCAG in connection with adoption of its 1998 Regional Transportation Plan RTP which conclude that the
regional air travel demand will be met whether a commercial airport is constructed at MCAS El TORO or not despite the inconveniences and delays that may be caused at other regional
airports as a result of the servicing of this increased demand
Consistent with this reasoning and as can been seen in the summary tables provided see Table 4.5 32A B C D and E when considering the Proposed Project's impact on regional
air quality in the phasing years 2005 2010 2015 and 2020 compared to the No Project 2005 2010 2015 and 2020 condition emissions of CO NOx ROC and PM10 would all
be lower as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project under each development scenario Essentially then the Proposed Project would be self mitigating This is primarily
due to the quantity of air travel demand that could be accommodated within the Orange
County Airport System El TORO with 28.8 MAP and JWA with 5.4 MAP in 2020 with implementation of the Proposed Project and the reduction in regional surface traffic

movements that would occur with the Proposed Project due to the shorter trip lengths that would occur fur passengers and cargo

I SCAG is currently updating the RTP These updates have not been approved at this time
County of Orange EIR No 573 4 Air Quality Technical Report 13
13 Page 14 15
Regionwide Emissions Inventory 2020 1
Aircraft El Tom JWA
Other Airports
Regional
GSE El Tom
JWA Regional

Nat Gas El Toro JWA
Others Regional
Fuel El Toro JWA
Regional Roads El Toro
JWA Others
Regional
TOTAL pounds day Change from 2020 No

Project pounds day

7,100 7,955 1,234 6,197
1,246 298 158,241 77,2 1 I 15,548

171,538 86,412 17,080
15,500 1,661 470 4,293 515 140

19,793 2,176 610
109 625 6 20 117 1

544 3,132 29 673 3,874 3 6
7 8
5 83

41,56i 10,289 4,3 14 8,165 2,176 827
2,722,5 11 483,968 66,692 2,772,239 496,433 71,833
2,964,243 588,895 89,606
10,779 -5 ,8 3 3 -1,307

Change from 2020 No
Project tons year
SCAQMD Threshold for Operation pounds day

1,967 1,065 -239
550 5 5 55

Source LSA Associates Inc 1999

Table 32A
koposed Project No Project Pounds Day Unless Na

Q4ltegml 1 wx

2,13 91,085
93,220
664 664

182 3,691
3,873 I

I
3,442 1,308 I 937 493,529

496,971
I

70,589 8,892 71,897 9,829
90,913 10,393

396 I 18,390 405
18,786 405 m
186 27
186 27

z 34 3 6 0

8 8

I
6 126

132

I

I Emission sources included in the Other Airports category include aircraft GSE and road parking lots at other airports in the region
County of Orange EIR No 573 5 Air Quality Technical Report 14
14 Page 15 16
Table 32B Regionwide Emissions Inventory Existing Conditions Plus Project Pounds Da 7 Unless Noted
Existing Conditions 1 c
Aircraft El Toro JWA
Other Airports Regional
GSE El Toro JWA
Regional Nat Gas El Toro
JWA Others
Regional

Existing Conditions 1998 ^ 998 Plus Proposed co NO
1 7,100 7,955

6,197 1,246 103,183 41,349
116,480 50,550 15,500 1,661
4,293 515 19,793 2,176

Aircraft El Toro JWA
Other Airports Regional
GSE Ei Toro JWA
Regional

1,651 254 10,300 1,567
103,183 41,349 115,134 43,170
500 283
3,960 4,743 13 135
I 1,213 35 113 3

5,768 482 166 19 6.98 1 517 279 22

298 3,960
5,492 470
140 610

135 135
61 21
8 2 Nat Gas El Toro
JWA Others
Regional

6 1
10 17
1 3 13 7 6
157 904 171 983
109 625 20 117
157 904 286 1,646
Fuel

Roads
El Two JWA
Regional El Two
JWA Others
Regional

Fuel
Roads
El Toro JWA
Regional El Toro
JWA Others
Regional

1 8
9 176
1,201 228,682
230,059

7 8 5
83 4,3 14 2,776

2,929 11,852
3,296,330 3,311,111
41,56 8,165
3,253,615 3,303,343
10,289 1 1 860
13,549 14,420 3,158 746,234 749,986 2,176 736,145 748,610 827 224,43 5 229,576
235,778 TOTAL pounds day 1 3,433,3971 794,6561 235,101 14,610 TOTAL pounds day 3,439,9021 800,982 14,663 5 3 677 Change from Existing
Conditions pounds day Change from Existing
Conditions tons year

6,5052 I 6,326
124 10 d
5 5 150 SCAQMD Threshold for

Source LSA Associates Inc 1999

1 Emission sources included in the Other Airports category include aircraft GSE and road parking lots at other airports in the region
2 Numbers in bold represent change from Existing Conditions exceed SCAQMD operational thresholds

County of Orange EIR No 573 6 Air Quality Technical Report 15
15 Page 16 17
Despite these probable decreases in the ambient air emissions in the future the Proposed Project's regional air quality impacts when compared to existing conditions
1998 are significant prior to mitigation under each of the development scenarios As stated above however the significant regional air quality impacts under each
development scenario can be mitigated to a level below the level of significance after adoption of recommended mitigation

County of Orange EIR No 573 7 Air Quality Technical Report 16
16 Page 17 18
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES
The Proposed Project includes improvements at the MCAS El Toro project site and at JWA The project is described in Chapter 3.0 of this EIR No 573

The alternatives are described in Chapter 8.0 of this EIR No 573
The reader is referred to Volume I of the EIR for descriptions of the Proposed Project and the alternatives which are addressed in this Air Quality Technical Report

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 17
17 Page 18 19
3.0 EXISTING AIR QUALITY SETTING
3 1 8 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS IN EIR NO 563
Final EIR No 563 evaluated potential air quality impacts associated with the Community Reuse Plan CRP for the MCAS El Toro site The Air Quality Technical Report for the
CRP Appendix G of EIR No 563 and Section 4.5 of EIR No 563 provided the results of that analysis and the potential impacts of the proposed CRP on air quality The
analysis focused on four areas of concern construction short term impacts regional air quality impacts total air pollutants emissions local air quality impacts due to traffic
CO and local air quality impacts due to aircraft and associated operations CO N02 SO The significance of the project's projected emissions was determined based on a
comparison of these emissions with the State and federal ambient air quality standards The proposed CRP's consistency with the regional air quality management plan AQMP
was also evaluated
The proposed CRP was found to be consistent with the regional AQMP EIR No 563 also found that fkom a regional air quality perspective the CRP may have two beneficial
effects on regional air emissions The elimination of the existing MCAS El Toro military operations from the basin and the reduction of vehicular travel related to air travel
demand accessing aviation facilities were the primary reasons for these beneficial effects EIR No 563 however found that the CRP would result in significant unavoidable
construction impacts
CEQA findings facts in support of findings and a statement of overriding considerations related to air quality were also prepared and included in Final EIR No 563 Vol 6A
Attachment A Mitigation measures were recommended where appropriate and applicable in order to mitigate significant identified impacts In addition a mitigation
monitoring plan was adopted incorporating these recommended mitigation measures Volume 6A Attachment B

3.1 I Significant Effects that Cannot be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance
EIR No 563 found that air quality impacts during construction of the CRP would be reduced or minimized to the extent feasible however those impacts cannot be feasibly
mitigated to below a level of significance and the remaining unavoidable effkts are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic legal social
technological and other considerations described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 18
18 Page 19 20
3.1.2 Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Below a
Level of Significance

EIR No 563 found that the CRP could result in an exceedance of the eight hour CO standards at one intersection due to vehicular traffic In addition the one hour CO
standards could be exceeded at several receptor locations f om aircraft operations under the worst case conditions which represent the highest activity level and unfavorable
meteorology NO and SO standards could also be exceeded under the worst case conditions However all of these potential impacts could be mitigated to below a level of
significance with the adoption of feasible mitigation measures identified in EIR No 563 and as provided in Section 3.1.4

3.1.3 Final EIR No 563 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures were recommended for adoption in EIR No 563 to minimize the air quality impacts

AQ 1 Prior to adoption of a construction level plan for the MCAS El Toro site the County of Orange will include mitigation measures related to construction
based on the recommendations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District

AQ 2 The County of Orange will identify as necessary the need for a Transportation Demand Management TDM program for the MCAS El Toro
site as part of the construction level environmental documentation for the project

AQ 3 In order to maintain consistency with the 1994 AQMP the County of Orange will ensure that construction level environmental documentation for the
project incorporates the appropriate mitigation measures identified in the 1994 AQMP that are applicable to airports

AQ 4 The County of Orange will conduct additional traffic studies concurrently with construction level environmental documentation to determine how to
improve the capacity and minimize congestion at the intersection of Bake Parkway and Trabuco Road If additional intersections are found in these
detailed traffic studies to be adversely impacted additional analysis to improve those intersections will also be conducted

AQ 5 During design of the aviation uses on the site the County of Orange will consider including electrical power outlets for landside passenger shuttles
including incorporation of electrical power outlets in the terminal and parking lot design to accommodate electric shuttle vehicles This would include
providing electrical outlets for battery charging for passenger shuttles that serve hotels rental car agencies and other businesses

County of Orange EIR No 573 10 Air Quality TechnicaI Report 19
19 Page 20 21
AQ 6
AQ 7
During design of the aviation uses on the site the County of Orange will consider encouraging the use of alternative tie1 vehicles powered by natural
gas propane and or other alternative f els and providing fuel storage facilities for these alternative fuels
During the preparation of construction level environmental documentation for the project the County of Orange or the airport operator will require that plans
and procedures be prepared that includes the requirement for final design studies to minimize taxi in and taxi out times and reduce aircraft queuing
times These may include but are not limited to design features and specific operations procedures

AQ 8 During design of the aviation uses on the site the County of Orange will consider including electrical power and preconditioned air in the design of the
terminal gates jetways to reduce emissions from operating aircraft engines at the gates

AQ 9 During design of the aviation uses on the site the County of Orange will consider including electrical power outlets for electric ramp vehicles and for
battery charging for ground support equipment
AQ 10 During design of the aviation uses on the site the County of Orange will consider incorporating hydrant fueling systems for commercial jet aircrafi
operations

3.1.4 Final EIR No 563 Supplemental Analysis
A Draft Supplemental Analysis for Final EIR No 563 was prepared in response to a January 6 1998 ruling and writ of mandate issued by the San Diego Superior Court

which found that certain portions of EIR No 563 were inadequate or incomplete under CEQA The trial court's writ directs certain revisions to the air quality analysis of Final
EIR 563 Specifically the trial court directed the County to

1
2

0

4

include an air quality impacts analysis which measures the project impacts and their significance against existing physical conditions
revise consistent with the Statement of Decision any comparison of the project impacts to anticipated future conditions based upon projected unconstrained
demand revise any analysis in the EIR which is dependent upon or directly related to the
conclusion that the project would not result in a net regional increase in air passenger service and related commercial flight activity of approximately 23.3
MP served by El Toro in the year 2020 or provide such additional evidence with respect to this assumption which may be available to or developed by the
County and consider the additional or modified information and to adopt any necessary
additional or revised findings

County of Orange EIR No 573 1 1 Air Quality Technical Report 20
20 Page 21 22
In response to this direction the County prepared the Draft Supplemental Analysis DSA The DSA first provides an analysis of the local air quality impacts of each of the
reuse alternatives and their significance against existing physical conditions Second a regional air quality impacts analysis is provided with respect to each of the reuse
alternatives and their significance against existing conditions This supplemental analysis did not assume the existence of unbuilt or unfunded infrastructure rather the project
alternatives were added to the 1995 roadway network and traffic volumes Under the Supplemental Analysis as discussed below the magnitude of the impact under each
reuse alternative is somewhat greater than the impacts summarized in Final EIR 563 for 2020 air quality conditions

Under the approach taken in the Draft Supplemental Analysis for Final EIR No 563 the air quality assessment determined that from a regional air quality perspective the
Proposed Project would result in an increase in commercial aircraft operations with corresponding significant impacts to regional air quality when compared to existing
conditions It also determined however that to a limited extent these impacts would be offset with the elimination of the existing MCAS El Toro military operations from the
basin With respect to regional air quality impacts due to motor vehicles the draft analysis determined that the Proposed Project would result in an increase in motor
vehicle emissions over existing conditions that exceed the applicable thresholds of significance and therefore the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact on
regional air quality However the analysis also indicates that the Proposed Project would have a beneficial effect by providing an airport closer to much of the population and
reducing the surface travel trip length for many travelers
With respect to local air quality impacts and aircraft emissions the Draft Supplemental Analysis determined that the Proposed Project when compared to existing conditions
would exceed local ambient air quality standards and would therefore have a significant impact on local air quality With respect to local air quality impacts due to motor
vehicles the Proposed Project would result in higher CO concentrations than existing conditions resulting from higher traffic volumes and increased congestion Because any
exceedance of the ambient air quality standards is considered a significant impact the Proposed Project would result in significant impacts on local air quality due to motor
vehicles
The approach taken under the analysis provided in the Draft Supplemental Analysis for Final EIR No 563 does not take into account a number of significant factors relevant to
the assessment of air quality impacts which may reduce baseline emissions levels in the future Emissions generated in the air basin have steadily been decreasing and are
projected by the SCAQMD to continue to decrease By combining existing regional emissions with projected future emissions the analysis overlooks the projections by
SCAQMD that pollutant sources creating the existing emissions will become steadily
cleaner over the years that motor vehicles operating in 20 years will be substantially cleaner than today's vehicles and that industrial pollutant sources will continue to be

regulated and continue to become cleaner as less polluting technologies continue to become available that replace today's more polluting technologies Additionally this

County of Orange EIR No 573 1 2 Air Quality Technical Report 21
21 Page 22 23
approach overlooks studies conducted by P D Aviation and SCAG in connection with the adoption of the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan RTP which conclude that the
projected regional air travel demand could be met at other commercial airports in the region whether a commercial airport is constructed at MCAS El Toro or not and on that

basis it is incorrect to assume that the CRP will add substantial emissions attributable to aircraft operations in the region Circumstances relevant to a federally deregulated
aviation industry and future economic development in Southern California also clearly indicate that the aviation industry will provide service to meet foreseeable demand
regardless of inconvenience levels so long as such service is profitable The question in Southern California is not whether future airline service will be provided to meet
demand but where Runway capacity at locations remote from current or future population centers is available but the consequence of using those facilities is increased
drive time and VMT and resulting emissions More conveniently located facilities such as LAX Burbank or San Diego can certainly handle increasing passenger demand
levels but at a cost of increased congestion and passenger inconvenience For Orange County passengers of course LAX Burbank and other such existing facilities are
relatively remote and require additional VMT to reach But there is no substantial or credible evidence or experience in Southern California to support a conclusion that the
airlines will simply fail to provide service sufficient to meet demand in a fully deregulated environment

Despite these probable decreases in the ambient air emissions in the future the Supplemental Analysis determined that the CRP would result in significant local and
regional air quality impacts when compared to existing conditions

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.2.1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality
Standards

Both the State of California and the federal government have established health based Ambient Air Quality Standards AAQS for six air pollutants These pollutants include
ozone carbon monoxide nitrogen dioxide sulfur dioxide suspended particulate matter and lead In addition the State has set standards for sulfates hydrogen sulfide vinyl
chloride and visibility reducing particles These standards are designed to protect the
health and welfare of the populace including sensitive population groups such as children the elderly and those with respiratory problems with a reasonable margin of

safety Table 1 lists the federal and State AAQS
In addition to federal AAQS the State of California has established a set of episode criteria for ozone carbon monoxide nitrogen dioxide sulfur dioxide and particulate
matter These criteria refer to episode levels representing periods of short term exposure to air pollutants that actually threaten public health Health effects are progressively
more severe as pollutant levels increase from Stage One to Stage Three

County of Orange EIR No 573 13 Air Quality Technical Report 22
22 Page 23 24
Pollutant Averaging Time
Ozone 1 Hour 8 Hour cvv pw4 m 0.08 ppm UalIIG a3 Primary Std I
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average
1 Hour 25 ppm 7n m 7

Pm 5 m

mm 13 I Same as I Prima 6 Std
9.0 ppm 10 mgIm3
1 I 8 Hour 9.0 r Carbon 10 m Monoxide

1 Hour 20.0 1 23 mbl14 I Tu Ilmyllll
Annual Geometric Mean 30 Pm Suspended

Particulate Matter 24 Hour 50 km3 150 pgrm Same as
F Annual Primary Std Arithmetic Mean 50 Pm3

Suspended Annual Particulate Arithmetic Mean 15 m
Matter PM25 24 Hour 65 Pm Annual

0.03 ppm Average 80 Pm Same as
L 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm Primary Std

Sukr 24 Hour 105 dm3 365 m3 1 Dioxide
3 Hour 0.5 ppm 1300 Fg ms

l Hour 0.25 ppm 655 dm4
30 Day I I
Lead Average
1.5 m 1

Calendar Quarter 1.5 pglm Same as Primary Std 1

Sulfates 24 Hour 25 m 1
I 1 Hour 0.03 ppm G 42 km 1

Dride I 1101 mki me 24 Hour 0.01 ppm 26 dm3 Visibility
Reducing 8 Hour IO a m to 6 p m PST m Particles
I
lrMr In sufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer due to particles when the relative humidity is less than 70 Measurement in accordance with ARB Method V

I

C o u n t y o f O r a n g e Table 1
Ambient Air Quality Standards 23
23 Page 24 25
Throughout this analysis there will be references to attainment non attainment and maintenance designations Attainment refers tu geographic areas that meet the AAQS
while non attainment refers to areas that do not meet the AAQS Maintenance areas refer to geographic areas that were once non attainment but recently are achieving the AAQS
The State of California is required by the Clean Air Act to prepare a State Implementation Plan SIP fur areas that are in non attainment or maintenance The SIP
reflects the steps or plan that the State has enacted to show the federal government that it will achieve attainment for all criteria pollutants

3.2.2 Local Ambient Air Quality
The project sites are located in central Orange County an area within the South Coast Air Basin Basin The Basin includes Orange County and the non desert portions of Los
Angeles Riverside and San Bernardino counties Air quality conditions in the Basin are under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD

Orange County is in the Basin which is currently designated as non attainment for ozone carbon monoxide CO and particulate matter PMlo and maintenance for
nitrogen dioxide NO relative to the national standards The Basin is in attainment under the California standards for CO NO2 SO2 lead Pb and sulfates and in nonattainment
under the California standards for ozone and particulate matter PMlo Table 2 lists the sources primary health effects and status of meeting the standards of these six
criteria air pollutants These health effects would nut occur unless the standards are exceeded by a large margin or for a prolonged period of time

Ozone
Ozone smog is formed by photochemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen and reactive organic gases rather than being directly emitted Ozone is a pungent colorless
gas typical of Southern California smog Ozone levels peak during the summer and early fall months The Basin which includes Orange County is designated a non attainment
area for both federal and State ozone standards The U S Environmental Protection Agency has classified the Basin as an extreme non attainment area and has mandated
that the basin achieve attainment by 2010

Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide CO is formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels almost entirely from automobiles The Basin is in attainment with the State CO standards
Although the basin is in non attainment for CO relative to the federal standards air quality data monitored in Orange County have not exceeded the federal CO standards in
the past five years

County of Orange EIR No 573 15 Air Quality Technical Report 24
24 Page 25 26
t
Pollutants Sources Health Effects Meeting the Standards

Ozone
o 3

Particulate M a t t e r
PM10

Ozone forms when nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons
emitted from mobile and stationary sources combine
and chemically react in the sunlight

Natural and man made Ambient PM levels are associated substances finer than the
diameter of a human hair with an increase in respiratory make up PM e g soil dust infections asthma attacks and cancer and decreased lifesoot

vehicle exhaust sea expectancy up to three years and salt rubber from tire wear and breathing capacity Fine particles
organic materials also reduce visibility

Ozone reduces breathing capacity causes inflammation of lung tissue
may increase asthma attacks and may accelerate the lung's aging
process Some people experience chest pains coughing wheezing
labored breathing and nausea Ozone also can irritate eyes and
reduce the respiratory system's ability to fight infections

Exceedances of state and federal standards have decreased
significantly from 1976 to 1998 The Basin's 1998 maximum ozone level
24 ppm was slightly higher than
i n 1997 when it was .21 ppm a record tow State and federal

standards were exceeded in 1998 on 114 and 62 respectively As of
mid August the 1999 peak ozone level was .1 7 ppm

PM10 levels in the basin are consistently decreasing The
maximum annual average PM concentration in 1998 was 112 of

the federal standard lower than any previous years

Carbon Monoxide
CO

Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2

Sulfur Dioxide
SO2

Motor vehicles emit more than two thirds of the manmade
CO released into the air Burned wood and
charcoal decaying plants also emit carbon monoxide

A colorless odorless gas CO replaces the oxygen in the body's
red blood cells Exposure to high levels of CO can slow reflexes
cause confusion and drowsiness and result in death People with
heart disease are more susceptible t o developing chest pains when
exposed to low levels of CO

levels of CO continue to exceed federal standards by nearly 142
Unlike summer smog CO levels peak in winter months in coastal
areas near freeways The standard was exceeded 13 days in 1998

Motor vehicles factories and This gas which gives smog its power plants that bum fossil brownish hue irritates the lungs
fuels gas and oil produce and can increase susceptibility to nitrogen oxide Decaying respiratory infections like the flu
plants and lightning flashes bronchitis and pneumonia Ozone also are natural emitters of effects may be exaggerated in
NO combination with NO

Based on the last three years of air monitoring data the Southland has
fully met the federal health standard

This colorless gas is emitted SO can narrow airways and make from vehicles refineries
power plants and other it difficult for people to breathe facilities that bum fossil fuels particularly those who have
asthma

Since 1991 the South Coast Air Basin has had SO levels well
below the federal and state standards

I Lead Pb

I

AQMD rules limit lead Once in the blood Stream lead Can emissions from smelters but The basin has met federal and state cause damage to the brain nervous
lead also is found in old paints system and other body systems standards for lead since 1 983 and coatings plumbing and a Children are highly susceptible to
variety of other materials the effects of lead
ppm parts of pollution per million parts of air

C o u n t y o f O r a n g e Table 2 1
SOURCE SCAQMD September 7999 r Air Pollutants and Their

Effect on Human Health 25
25 Page 26 27
Nitrogen Oxides
Nitrogen oxides contribute to other pollution problems including a high concentration of fine particulate matter poor visibility and acid deposition Nitrogen dioxide NO2 a
reddish brown gas and nitric oxide NO a colorless odorless gas are formed from fuel combustion under high temperature or pressure These compounds are referred to as
nitrogen oxides or NO NO is a primary component of the photochemical smog reaction Air quality data monitored in Orange County have not exceeded both federal
and State standards for nitrogen dioxide in the past five years and the Basin is an area designated as maintenance under the federal standards and attainment under the State
standards

Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide SO2 is a colorless irritating gas formed primarily from incomplete combustion of fuels containing sulfur Industrial facilities also contribute to gaseous SO2

levels in the Basin Air quality data monitored in Orange County have not exceeded either the federal or the State standards The Basin is an area that is in attainment with
both federal and State sulfate dioxide standards

Reactive Organic Compounds
Reactive organic compounds ROC are formed firom combustion of fuels and evaporation of organic solvents Note that some agencies call these volatile organic
compounds VOC instead they are the same compound ROC is a prime component of the photochemical smog reaction Consequently ROC accumulates in the atmosphere
more quickly during the winter when sunlight is limited and photochemical reactions are slower Although there are no federal or State AAQS for ROCs ROCs are precursor
pollutants and contribute to ozone formation therefore their emissions are regulated

Particulate Matter
Particulate matter is the term used for a mixture of solid particles found in the air Coarse particles larger than 2.5 microns but smaller
PMlo come from a variety of sources including windblown
c
and liquid droplets than 10 microns or

dust and grinding operations Fine particles less than 2.5 microns or PM2 5 often come from tie1
combustion power plants diesel buses and trucks Fine particles can also be formed in the atmosphere through chemical reactions The Basin is a non attainment area for the
federal and State PM10 standard but air quality data monitored in Orange County have not exceeded the federal standard since 1996

CountyofOrange EIRNo 573 l7 Air Quality Technical Report 26
26 Page 27 28
3.2.3 Local Air Quality Monitoring Data
The project sites are located within SCAQMD jurisdiction The SCAQMD maintains ambient air quality monitoring stations throughout the Basin There are four air quality
monitoring stations in Orange County North Orange County formerly La Habra Central Orange County formerly Anaheim North Coast Orange formerly Costa Mesa
and Saddleback Valley formerly El Toro The Saddleback Valley air monitoring station is the station closest to the project site The Saddleback Valley station monitors CO
ozone and PM10 levels However nitrogen dioxide concentrations are not monitored at this station Nitrogen dioxide concentrations monitored at the Central Orange County
station or the North Coast Orange station are included for reference Figure 2 shows the SCAQMD Air Monitoring Network within the Basin

Tables 3 through 6 list the latest five years published data at these four monitoring stations Air quality trends show that NO2 and CO levels are below the relevant State and
federal standards at all four air monitoring stations This is based on data collected at these Orange County air quality monitoring stations between 1993 and 1997 Ozone
levels exceeded the State and federal standard in each of the past five years at the Saddleback Valley air monitoring station as was the case in many years at all Orange County
stations Pollutants emitted from upwind areas react during transport downwind to produce the ozone concentrations in the project area Many areas of the Basin contribute
to the ozone levels experienced at the Saddleback Valley monitoring station with the more significant areas being those directly upwind The PM10 level monitored at the
Saddleback Valley air monitoring station exceeded the State standards in each of the past five years Particulate levels in the area are essentially due to natural sources such as
wind erosion grading operations and motor vehicles CO levels in the region are currently within State and federal standards In summary ozone and fine suspended
particulates are the criteria pollutants of greatest concern in the project area based on actual measurements and their esceedance of the State and federal standards

3.2.4 Meteorology
The Basin climate is determined by its terrain and geographical location The Basin is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills The Pacific Ocean forms the
southwestern border and high mountains surround the rest of the Basin The region lies in the semi permanent high pressure zone of the eastern Pacific The resulting climate is
mild and tempered by cool ocean breezes It maintains moderate temperatures and comfortable humidity and limits precipitation to a few storms during the winter wet
season This weather pattern is rarely interrupted However periods of extremely hot weather winter storms or Santa Ana wind conditions do exist

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 27
27 Page 28 29
X Gaseous and Particulate Monitoring Site
l Gaseous Pollutant Monitoring Only
0 Particulate Sampling Only

0 SANTA CLARITA
RESEDA BURBANK
San Bernardino Co
LAKE GREGORY 4 I

PASADENA x MUS gLENDORA I FONTANA SAN BERNARDINO 4 4
LOSANGELES NO MAIN0 plco RIVERA l REDLANDS I

4 WEST LOS ANGELES
1 0 HAVVTHORNE EziE

SOURCE LSA Associates Inc
Scale in Miles

County of Orange Figure 2
SCAQMD Air Monitoring Network Within the South Coast Air Basin

m

l LAKE ELSINORE Rive de
I PROJECT LOCATIONS I 28
28 Page 29 30
Table 3 Ambient Air Quality at North Orange County Air Monitoring Station
1 1995 0 33 I 1 0
I 1994 I 1

IS3 l 1

I I T nnrr 177u 17 n 13 V 0 L n v 7 0 1K lJ 5 IIAA 1Y IV1 XTAA 1 lV1 0.0360 0 1YlVl
1995 I
100 l I I 1 M T 1A n 1 v v 0 QQ u u n U 35 J 9 1 lLT1 0.0414 0 n nni u uv 1 n U
s I 1993 1 I
l
1 3

Source SCAQMD Air Quality D a 1993 to 1997 NOTE l Not monitored at this monitoring station

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 29
29 Page 30 31
Table 4 Ambient Air Quality at Central Orange County Air Monitoring Station
I996 101 l
I995 0 19 1 4
0 d 34 106 YY 11 acI 19 I j A A 1

Is00 3 1 3
4 199d fz6 IV n v 71 YA 74 T l K AVV 1 1 10 l IX 0 hind llVl N M
Is00 3 1 3

1994 5 106 0
1993 3
1994 5 lot5 0 wwl V YCYY 0
1993 3
172
I I I I I I I I I I I

172
I I I I I I I NM I I

Source SCAQMD Air Quality Data 1993 to 1997 NOTE 11 Not monitored at this monitoring station

County of Orange EIR No 573 zl Air Quality Technical Report 30
30 Page 31 32
Table 5 Ambient Air Quality at North Coast Orange Air Monitoring Station
I I I I
mm
l Huur I Number I Numk

I t I I 1
3
1994
10 l

Source SCAQMD Air Quality Data 1493 to 1997 NOTE 1 Not monitored for a full 12 month period May not be representative
PI Not monitored at this monitoring station

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 31
31 Page 32 33
Table 6 Ambient Air Quality Saddleback Valley Air Monitoring Station
Stds 1997
I8 122 11
5.4 0 .18 16 91 7
l 115

122

2
1 122
CA 9 1 e
115
122

Source S QMD Air Quality Data 1993 to 1997
NOTE l Not monitored at this monitoring station

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 32
32 Page 33 34
The annual average temperature varies little throughout the Basin ranging from the low to middle 6Os measured in degrees Fahrenheit However in all parts of the Basin
temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit have been recorded in recent years With a more pronounced oceanic influence coastal areas show less variability in annual
minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas
The climatological stations reported to and documented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA that monitor temperature in the project vicinity
include Anaheim and Santa Ana Fire Stations The Anaheim station monitored monthly average temperatures ranging from 57.3 degrees Fahrenheit in January to 77.9 degrees
Fahrenheit in September in 1997 with an annual average of 67.1 degrees Fahrenheit The Santa Ana Fire Station monitored monthly average temperatures ranging from 58.6
degrees Fahrenheit in January to 77.9 degrees Fahrenheit in September in 1997 with an annual average of 67.2 degrees Fahrenheit January is typically the coldest month and
September the warmest month in this area of the Basin
The majority of annual rainfall in the Basin occurs between October and March Summer rainfall is minimal and generally limited to scattered thundershowers in coastal regions
and slightly heavier showers in the eastern portion of the Basin and along the coastal side of the mountains The climatological stations that monitor precipitation in the project
vicinity include the Anaheim and Santa Ana Fire Stations Rainfall measured at the Anaheim St ion in 1997 varied fkom 4.84 inches in January to 0.47 inch or less between
April and October with an annual totaI of 11.50 inches Rainfall measured at the Santa Ana station in 1997 varied from 5.20 inches in January to 1.76 inch or less between April
and October with an annual total of 13.58 inches Monthly and yearly rainfall totals are extremely variable

Temperature and rainfall data from the Anaheim and Santa Ana weather stations are included here tu show the characteristics of the climate in the project vicinity Hourly
meteorology data collected at MCAS El Toro and compiled by the National Climatological Data Center NCDC were used in the airport dispersion analysis of
airport emissions for both the John Wayne Airport and the MCAS El Toro sites
Although the Basin has a semi arid climate air near the surface is generally moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer With very low average wind speeds
there is a limited capacity to disperse air contaminants horizontally The dominant daily wind pattern is an onshore 8 to 12 miles per hour mph daytime breeze and an offshore 3
to 5 mph nighttime breeze The typical wind flow pattern fluctuates only with occasional winter storms or strong northeasterly Santa Ana winds from the mountains and deserts
northeast of the Basin Summer wind flow patterns represent worst case conditions as this is the period of higher temperatures and more sunlight which results in ozone
formation
Winds in the project area are almost always driven by the dominant land sea breeze circulation system Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime onshore sea
breezes At night the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling towards the

County of Orange EIR No 573 24 Air Quality Technical Report 33
33 Page 34 35
sea Wind direction will be altered by local canyons with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons During the transition Corn one wind pattern to the other the dominant
wind direction rotates into the south and causes a minor wind direction maximum Erom
the south The frequency of calm winds defined as less than 2 mph is less than ten percent Therefore there is little stagnation in the vicinity of the project area especially

during busy daytime traffic hours Santa Ana winds occur most commonly during the spring and fall These winds reverse the normal daytime wind patterns and winds in the
area travel from the northeast toward the coast
During spring and early summer pollution produced during any one day is typically blown out
of the Basin through mountain passes or lifted by warm vertical currents adjacent to mountain slopes Air contaminants can be transported 60 miles or more fkom

the Basin by ocean air during the afternoons From early fall to winter the transport is less pronounced because of slower average wind speed and the appearance of drainage
winds earlier in the day During stagnant wind conditions offshore drainage winds may begin by late afternoon Pollutants remaining in the Basin are trapped and begin to accumulate
during the night and the following morning A low morning wind speed in pollutant source areas is an important indicator of air stagnation and the buildup potential
for primary air contaminants
With persistent low inversions and cool coastal air morning fog and low stratus clouds are common Cloudy days are less likely in the eastern portions of the Basin and about
25 percent greater along the coast
The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the Basin is limited by temperature inversions in the atmosphere close to the earth's surface Temperature normally decreases with
altitude and a reversal of this atmospheric state where temperature increases with altitude is called an inversion The height from the earth to the inversion base is known
as the mixing height
Inversions are generally lower in the nighttime when the ground is cool than during daylight hours when the sun warms the ground and in turn the surface air layer As this
heating process continues the temperature of the surface air layer approaches the temperature of the inversion base causing heating along its lower edge If enough
warming takes place the inversion layer becomes weak and opens up to allow the surface air layers to mix upward This can be seen in the middle to late afternoon on a hot
summer day when the smog appears to clear up suddenly Winter inversions typically break earlier in the day preventing excessive contaminant buildup For the Basin the
morning mixing heights averaged about 73 1 meters or 2,400 feet annually This mixing height will be used in aircraft emissions dispersion analysis

The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the greatest pollutant concentrations On days of no inversion or high wind speeds ambient air
pollutant concentrations are lowest During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds air pollutants generated in urbanized areas are transported predominantly onshore
into Riverside and San Bernardino counties In the winter the greatest pollution

County of Orange EIRNo 573 25 Air Quality Technical Report 34
34 Page 35 36
problems are CO and oxides of nitrogen because of extremely low inversions and air stagnation during the night and early morning hours In the summer the longer daylight
hours and the brighter sunshine combine to cause a reaction between hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen to form photochemical smog

3.2.5 Air Quality Management
The 1976 Lewis Air Quality Management Act established air districts throughout the State of California with specific powers and duties relating to the control of air pollution
The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 1977 C U required that each state adopt an implementation plan outlining pollution control measures to attain the federal
standards in nun attainment or maintenance areas of the state
The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the Basin and develops and implements Transportation Control Measures The ARB is charged with
controlling motor vehicle emissions and establishing legal emissions rates for new vehicles and is responsible for the vehicle inspection program The ARB also oversees
activities of local air quality management agencies and is responsible for incorporating air quality management plans AQMP for local air basins into a State Implementation
Plan SIP for federal EPA approval The SIP is a plan that provides for implementation maintenance and enforcement of the AAQS

ARB maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout the State in conjunction with local air districts Data collected at these stations are used by the ARB to monitor air
relative to the AAQS and to classifjr air basins as attainment or non attainment with respect to each pollutant Attainment refers to geographic areas that meet the AAQS
while non attainment refers to areas that do not meet the AAQS Maintenance areas refer to geographic areas that were once non attainment but have shown recently that the areas
are achieving the AAQS
The federal CAA prohibits federal departments and agencies or other agencies from engaging in supporting in any way providing financial assistance for licensing
permitting or approving any activity that does not conform to the SIP
The Southern California Association of Governments SCAG is the Metropolitan Planning Organization MPO for Riverside San Bernardino Los Angeles Ventura
Imperial and Orange counties The SCAQMD and SCAG are responsible for formulating and implementing the AQMP for the Basin Regional AQMPs were adopted
for the Basin for 1979,1982 1989 1991 1994 and 1997 The AQMP must be reviewed and approved by the EPA before it becomes part of the SIP Federal law requires that a
Proposed Project conform to the SIP SIP status in the region is complex because of a combination of EPA proposed action on the SIP and legal action by various parties

County of Orange EIR No 573 26 Air Quality Technical Report 35
35 Page 36 37
In January 1999 the EPA proposed to approve some of the elements of the ozone portions of the 1997 AQMP submittal and disapprove others Separate parts of the 1997
AQMP related to CO and NO have previously been approved and EPA has yet to take action relative to the fine particulate PM10 portions of the 1997 SIP submittal Therefore
the following SIP and AQMP are the currently approved plans for the Basin
l 1994 SIP for ozone
l 1997 SIP for carbon monoxide
l 1994 and 1997 AQMP for ozone
l 1997 AQMP for PMlo CO and nitrogen dioxides and
l For those pollutants without an approved SIP the 1990 inventory will be used to
make a general conformity determination in connection with the EIS process

3.2.6 State Implementation Plan Budget
At the time of the 1994 and 1997 SIP preparation the MCAS El Toro Base was in active military use The 1994 and 1997 AQMP emissions budgets for military aircraft
operations are shown in Tables 7 and 8 These AQMP emissions are the basis for the SIP budgets

3.2.7 Existing Emissions Inventory
An emissions inventory of current operations associated with the existing land uses on the MCAS El Toro site and John Wayne Airport was developed Potentially significant
sources of emissions at MCAS El Toro and John Wayne Airport were identified and assessed Emission sources considered included aircraft operations ground support
equipment natural gas consumption for space and water heating electrical usage fuel storage facilities and motor vehicle emissions

Aircraft Emissions
Aircraft emissions were estimated for the existing 1998 condition based on the level of military operations at the MCAS El Toro site defined as the 1998 level of operations as
reported by the Marine Corps as well as the civilian operations at John Wayne Airport Operations in 1998 at the MCAS El Toro were low compared to the historical operations
at this site Operations at John Wayne Airport in 1998 were fairly typical of the operations at this airport

The projection of aircraft emissions is mathematically straightforward as described later in the methodology section The existing aircraft emissions associated with the MCAS El
Toro site and John Wayne Airport are provided in Table 9 The existing aircraft operations generate more CO emissions than any other pollutant 84 percent of pollutant
emissions are CO Non methane hydrocarbons NMHC reported in EDMS are similar to the reactive organic compounds ROC used in SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook and can be converted by multiplying a conversion factor of 1.14 SOX

County of Orange EIR No 573 n Air Quality Technical Report 36
36 Page 37 38
Table 7 El Tom MCAS Airport Flying Operations 1994 AQMP
1 4.7 j 60.2 1 50.8 1 56.3 1 54.9 1993 47571 262.0 58.6 I I
Total 262.0 58.6 4 .7 1 60.2 50.8 1 56.3 54.9

2000 47571 262.0 58.6 4 .7 60.2 50.8 56.3 54.9 -262.0 58.6 4 .7 60.2 -50.8 56.3 54.9

2002 47571 262.0 58.6 4 .7 60.2 50.8 1 56.3 54.9
Total 262.0 58.6 4 .7 60.2 50.8 1 56.3 549 l

1 -50.8 1 56.3 54.9 2005 47571 262.0 58.6
Tutal 262.0 58.6 1 4 .7 60.2 1 50.8 1 56.3 54.9

I I 2008 1 47571 1 262.0 58.6 4 .7 60.2 50.8 56.3 54.9

Total 1 262.0 1 58.6 1 4 .7 60.2 50.8 56.3 54.9
I 2010 47571 262.0 58.6 4 .7 60.2 50.8 1 56.3 54.9

Total 1 262.0 158.6 1 4.7 I 60.2 56.3 54.9
CES Description 47571 Jet aircraft military

b Contrul Fatium -7 111
EmWens Factor
I CO 1

CES
so VOC I f 1 TSP 1 PMXU 1993 r 47571 10 10 10 l ITOG 10 10 10 10

2000 47571 10 l 10 10 10 10 10 10 l
2002 47571 0.967 0.967 0.967 0.967 0.967 0.967 0.967
~ 2005 47571 0.917 0.917 0.917 0.917 0.917 0.9i 10.917
2008 47571 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.667
2010 47571 05 05 05 05 05 l 05 0 5

CES Description 47571 Jet aircraft militq

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 37
37 Page 38 39
Table 7 El
Toro MCAS Airport Flying Operations 1994 AQMP Continued

f
1993 T 47571 262.0 58.6 4.7 60.2 50.8 56.3 54.9
TOtd 262.0 58.6 4.7 60.2 50.8 56.3 1 54.9

4 56.1 4.5 58.2 49.1 54.4 53.1
56.7 4.5 58.2 49.1 54.4 53.1 I

2005 47571 240.3 53.7 4.3 55.2 46.6 51.6 50.4

Total 240.3 53.7 4.3 55.2 46.6 51.6 50.4

I 2010 47571 131.0 1 29.3 2.4 30.1 25.4 28.2 27.5 II Total 13 1.0 1 29.3 2.4 30.1 25.4 28.2 27.5
CES Description 47571 Jet aircraft military
TOG Total Organic Gases TSP Total Suspended Particulate
CES Category Emission Source a five digit code identifying area source emissions Control Factors Used to estimate remaining emissions after control measure is implemented
Controlled Emissions Remaining emissions after control measure is implemented

Source SCAQMD 1994

County of Orange EIRNo 573 29 Air Quality Technical Report 38
38 Page 39 40
Table 8
El Tom MCAS Airport Flying Operations 1997 AQMP

2010 47571 262.0 58.6 4.7 60.2 50.8 56.3 54r9
Total 262.0 58.6 4.7 60.2 50.8 56.3 54.9

2020 47571 262.0 58.6 4.7 60.2 50.8 56.3 54.9 Total 262.0
58.6 4.7 60.2 50.8 56.3 54.9

CES Description 47571 Jet aircraft military

2020 47571 262.0 58.6 4.7 60.2 50.8 56.3 54.9
Total 262.0 58.6 4.7 60.2 50 8 56.3 54.9

2010 47571 262.0 57.5 4.7 47.1 39.8 56.3 54.9
4 Total 262.0 57.5 4.7 47.1 39.8 56.3 54.9

2020 47571 262.0 57.5 4.7 47.1 39.8 56.3 I 54.9 Total 262.0
57.5 4.7 47.1 39.8 56.3 54.9

CES Description 47571 Jet aircraft military

TOG Total Organic Gases TSP Total Suspended Particulate
Controlled Emissions Remaining emissions after control measure is implemented

Source SCAQMD 1997

County of Change ETR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 39
39 Page 40 41
Table 9 1998 Aircraft Operations Emissions Pounds Day
x i NOx 1 R JC -7 Lp J
John Wayne Airport 10,300 1,567 283 70 L I a
MCAS El Tore 1,651 254 500 15 I Subtotal Aircrafi Emissions 11,951 1,821 783 85 I

Source CH2M Hill and LSA Associates Inc 1999
Converted from HC emissions reported by EDMS by multiplying a factor of 1.14 EDMS does not report PM10 emissions for aircraft

emissions are very low reflecting that there is very little sulfur in jet fuel No PM10 emissions are reported for a r by EDMS PM10 emission factors for most types of
commercial aircraft are not included in published EPA and FAA aircraft emissions databases EPA last published emission rate data for aircraft in 198 1 which included
emission rate data for total suspended particulate TSP not PMlo FAA used that data in their databases and models until 1995 In 1995 FAA removed the TSP data from its
databases and from the EDMS model Emissions estimates and dispersion modeling for PM10 cannot be conducted for the following reasons 1 there are virtually no data
regarding the potential PM10 emissions fkom the new generation aircraft engines that would dominate the fleet mix at MCAS El Toro 2 the methods used to estimate TSP are
unreliable and 3 the conversion of TSP to PM10 is uncertain for aircraft engines

Ground Support Equipment GSE Auxi iary Power Units APU Emissions

Fur existing conditions at MCAS El Toro only two types of GSE are used fuel trucks and tugs Fuel trucks complete the refueling requirement while tugs move aircraft from
the parking apron to hangars for maintenance There is no specific emission data available for these particular types of equipment However because the tugs were used
infrequently and fuel trucks represented only a small amount of total vehicles in the area they represented an insignificant portion of the overall emissions generated by existing
1998 operations on the MCAS El Toro site In summary the existing level of emissions f om ground support equipment was so low that it had no impact on overall air
quality at this site No APU emissions were generated at MCAS El Toru under the existing conditions based on the military use of the aircraft at this site

At John Wayne Airport the emissions evaluation associated with ground upport equipment prepared for this study included GSE based on model default assumptions
For a detailed listing of default GSE assigned please refer to Appendix F A EDMS
Model printouts

Preconditioned air and 400 Hz electric power are supplied at each gate at John Wayne
Airport therefore minimizing the use or eliminating the need for the use of APU However emissions associated with APU were generated at John Wayne Airport under

the existing conditions using the EDMS default value of 26 minutes of APU operation

County of Orange EIR No 573 3 1 Air Quality Technical Report 40
40 Page 41 42
per LTO cycle This approach is similar to the calculations of GSE emissions for the existing and fixture conditions
Table 10 lists the emissions associated with existing ground support equipment at the
MCAS El Tore site and John Wayne Airport

Table 10 1998 Ground Support Equipment Emissions Pounds Day

Source CH2M Hill and LSA Associates Inc 1999 NOTE l Converted from HC emissions reported by EDMS by multiplying a factor of 1.14
Natural Gas Combustion and Electrical Usage Emissions
Emissions were generated on the MCAS El Toro site by the combustion of natural gas for space heating and water heating Projections of emissions associated with this process at

the MCAS El Toro site are provided in Table 11 Off site emissions were generated due to electrical usage on the MCAS El Toro site The generation of electrical energy by the
combustion of fossil fuels results in emissions off site Emissions generated as a result of the use of electricity on the site are provided in Table 11 Emissions associated with
these sources were calculated based on the consumption of 11,167 Kw hr yr of electricity and 100,000 therms yr of natural gas at MCAS El Toro during 1998 as
reported by the Marines
Table 11 1998 Energy Consumption Emissions MCAS El Toro Site Pounds Day

Source P D Consultants and LSA Associates Inc 1999 NOTE 11 Amount too smaII to be counted
Similarly at John Wayne Airport the total natural gas usage in 1998 by the airpoti and its tenants was approximately 157,000 therms for the entire year Electricity usage for the
entire year at John Wayne was approximately 22,600 OOO kilowatt hours kWh Based on these energy uses the emissions associated with this process at John Wayne Airport
are provided in Table 12

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 41
41 Page 42 43
Table 12 1998 Energy Consumption Emissions John Wayne Airport Pounds Day
1 Subtotal I 13.20 I 76.13 I 0.84 I 7.43 I 2.49 II
Source John Wayne Airport and LSA Associates Inc 1999 NOTE l Amount too small to be counted

Fuel Storage Facilities Emissions
Fuel storage and dispensing facilities can be substantial sources of hydrocarbon HC emissions At MCAS El Toro aircraft were fueled by truck and by high speed pipeline
According to the Department of the Navy 1990 El Toro MCAS Master Plan MCAS El Toro is authorized to store 4.1 million gallons of propellant jet fuel JP 5 at any given
time The site however had a capacity of only 3.3 million gallons which was therefore the maximum fuel storage capacity on the MCAS El Toro site HC emissions were
generated with the fueling operations at the MCAS El Toro site The EDMS model described later was used to estimate the HC emissions associated with the fuel facilities
on the MCAS El Toro site According to Phil Bohn former Director of Fuel Division at MCAS El Toro the Marine Corps did not use vapor recovery systems for jet fkl Vapor
recovery systems reduce or eliminate the escape of HC into the atmosphere Under the existing 1998 condition fueling operation at MCAS El Toro was reduced to a level
much lower than the historical fuel consumption at the site It was estimated that less than one third of the fueling capacity or less than one million gallons was used in 1998
at MCAS El Toro Because vapor recovery systems were not used on the site it was
estimated that emissions from the fuel storage facilities dispensing fuels on the site reached up to 416 pounds of HC per year or 1.14 pounds per day ppd

Emissions associated with the tie1 storage facilities at John Wayne Airport in 1998 were estimated with the EDMS model The only emissions associated with tie1 storage and
dispensing were hydrocarbons HC which can be converted to the reactive organic compounds ROC The ROC emissions were estimated to be approximately one ton per
year or 8.36 pounds per day by the EDMS model However because fueling facilities at John Wayne Airport use floating roof and vapor recovery systems for most of the fuel
storage and dispensing facilities on site ROC emissions from these fuel facilities were considered to be less than what EDMS reported

Motor Vehicle Emissions
Motor vehicle emissions are among the most substantial sources of emissions and are the product of the number of trips associated with a facility the average length of those trips
and the corresponding pollutant emission rates

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 42
42 Page 43 44
Traffic trips generated at the MCAS El Toro site during 1998 were a combination of remaining marine use and nonaviation lease uses on site No trip assignment was
possible among these land uses Because the total trips entering and leaving the MCAS El Toro site were available for the year 1998 emissions associated with vehicular trips
were calculated based on these trips and an average trip length According to the trafk study for the project Austin Foust Associates Inc 1999 there were approximately
25,400 average daily trips ADT fium the MCAS El Toro site with an average trip length of ten miles This is the default trip length in URBEMIS7G for commuting in this
region Due to the characteristics of the remaining land uses on the MCAS El Toro site this default trip length is considered adequate for emissions calculation purposes This
translates to a total of 254,000 daily vehicle miles traveled VMT generated by the uses on the MCAS El Toro in 1998 An average speed of 25 miles per hour was assumed to
account for the commute primarily on local streets Emission factors obtained Tom CARlB were used to estimate vehicular emissions CAR6 releases emission factors
through a large computer database called EMFAC The emission factors version EMFAC7G was used to calculate the vehicular trip related emissions Motor vehicle
emissions were estimated for 1998 The existing motor vehicle emissions associated with the MCAS El Toro site are provided in Table 13

There were a total of 47,450 ADT from John Wayne Airport under the existing condition Austin Foust Associates August 1999 These trips were related to commercial air
terminal and air cargo handling facilities Because these trips were more defined with land uses on site the CARB air quality model for land use related vehicular trips
URBEMIS7G was used for vehicular trip emissions associated with John Wayne Airport in 1998 It should be noted that based on passenger origins and destinations from the
airport an average trip length of 15.4 miles was used for all passenger trips The aviation demand trips generated by P D Consultants September 1999 for the year 2020
Proposed Project Alternative B for John Wayne Airport were used to calculate the average trip length for airport passengers at JWA The number of trips to each subregion
in Southern California 102 total were multiplied by the distance between JWA and these subregions and then divided by the total number of trips to get the average trip
length fur all passengers at JWA The existing motor vehicle emissions associated with John Wayne Airport are provided in Table 13

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 43
43 Page 44 45
Table 13
Existing Airport Vehicular Trips Emissions Pounds Day

Source Austin Faust Associates and LSA Associates Inc 1999 NOTE I Not available URBEMIS7G does not provide emissions for SOX
PI Based on 254,000 daily vehicle miles traveled VMT by traffic trips associated with MCAS El Two site in 1998

Total Project Site Emissions
This subsection summarizes the existing emissions at the MCAS El Toro site and at John Wayne Airport Table 14 lists the suurces and pollutant emissions in pounds per day
from all of the individually addressed sources aircraft operations motor vehicle trips associated with both sites fuel storage facilities natural gas combustion on site and
emissions associated with the generation of electricity Emissions were then totaled at the bottom of the table For comparison purposes the annual average daily emissions for
the Basin are also shown in the table The emissions for the 1993 base year and 2000 base year from the 1997 AQMP two of the closest years to the baseline conditions in
1998 are shown in the table
Table 14 Summarized Air Pollutant Emissions For Existing Conditions
Pounds Day Unless Noted

Source SCAQMD 1996 CH2M Hill and LSA Associates Inc 1999 NOTE l Both URBEMIS7G and EMFAC7G do nut predict the emission level for SOx due to the attainment status
of SOx in California and the improved vehicle engines emitting little SO 2 Obtained from the 1997 AQMP

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 44
44 Page 45 46
As can be seen from the data in the table above motor vehicle emissions comprise the bulk of the emissions generated at the MCAS El Toro site and at John Wayne Airport
Motor vehicles include traffic trips generated at the MCAS El Toro site Marine and nonaviation lease use and John Wayne Airport passenger and cargo related trips Motor
vehicles accounted for 44 percent of CO emissions 55 percent of ROC emissions 61 percent of NOx emissions and 97 percent of particulate emissions associated with
activities at or generated by the MCAS El Toru site and John Wayne Airport Because no SO emissions were reported by UREMIS7G from motor vehicles SO emissions
generated by motor vehicle trips are considered small and negligible Aircraft operations not including GSE also account for a sizable percentage of the total emissions Aircraft
operations accounted for 35 percent of CO emissions 33 percent of ROC emissions 30 percent of NOx emissions 0 percent of particulate emissions and 80 percent of SOx
emissions
The emissions from fuel storage on site natural gas combustion and off site electricity generation are very small and contribute little to the overall emissions estimates

The amount of emissions attributable to the MCAS El Toro site and John Wayne Airport is a small part of the regional emissions As can be seen in Table 14 contribution of the
project sites to regional emissions were all below three tenths of one percent of the year 2000 basin total emissions

3.2.8 Local Air Quality
Because of the high volume of mobile source exhausts airport runways and roadway intersections can generate hot spots of air quality where the AAQS may be exceeded
The following subsections examine the existing air quality at the MCAS El Toro site John Wayne Airport and in the vicinity of these Proposed Project sites

Local Air Quality Due to Motor Vehicles
Local air quality typically associated with CO emissions is a major concern along roadways Unlike ozone CO is directly emitted from a variety of sources The most
notable source of CO is motor vehicles For this reason CO concentrations are usually indicative of local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used to assess its
impacts on local air quality In fact the CO criterion will always be the first pollutant standard to be exceeded near an intersection and therefore is usually the only pollutant
assessed for roadway networks In comparison the actual concentration of NOzcaused by vehicles at intersections is usually much lower than the 240hour average and annual
average standards Therefore NO2 modeling for vehicular traf5c is not required
CO levels in the project vicinity due to nearby roadways were assessed with the CAL3QHC computer model The purpose of the model is to assess air quality impacts
near transportation facilities in what is known as the microscale region The microscale
1 EDMS does not report PM10 or particulate emissions fivm aircraft
County of Orange EIR No 573 36 Air Quality Technical Report 45
45 Page 46 47
region encompasses the region of a few miles around the pollutant source Given source strength meteorology site geometry and site characteristics the model can reliably
predict pollutant concentrations
The FAA recommends the use of CAL3QHC which is based on CALJNE3 the model recommended by the U S EPA for estimating CO concentrations in the vicinity of
intersections CAL3QHC incorporates methods for estimating queue lengths and the contribution of emissions from idling vehicles The model permits the estimation of total
air pollution concentrations fkom both moving and idling vehicles By forecasting future area roadway CO concentrations with the CAL3QHC model idling vehicle emissions at
or near congested intersections were taken into account
In evaluating CO hot spots for this analysis guidelines for such evaluations published in the Guideline For Modeling Carbon Monoxide From Roadway Intersections U S
EPA November 1992 were used This guidance document includes criteria for receptor siting and intersection selection as well as input data selection for ambient conditions
and background concentrations for CO hotspot analysis
Generally the highest concentrations would be expected during the peak hours of traffic The peak hour traffic conditions are defined as the average or typical values during the
hours of the day that usually record the peak hour traffic rather than the worst case traffic conditions for the entire year Peak hour traffic volumes and the volume capacity v c
ratios at the critical intersections as defined below were used in the CAL3QHC modeling The v c ratios determine the congestion levels at these intersections The v c
ratios also determine the speeds used at these intersections The lower the speed used the higher the emissions factors and therefore the higher the CO levels that will result
Trtic data provided by the County's traffic consultant Austin Foust Associates were used for this analysis

The source height was specified as 0.0 meter to represent the tailpipe of an auto A vehicle speed of 25 mph which is less than the posted speed was used in order to reflect
appropriate congestion on the roadway during peak travel periods The vehicle cold and hot start percentages of 26 and 27.3 respectively as recommended in the Federal Test
Procedure FTP conditions were used in this analysis
The following meteorological conditions were used
l Late afternoon winter period with a ground based inversion
l Wind speed of 1 O meter per second one mps
l Stability class E used for a one hour averaging time
l Every 10 degrees of wind direction fkom zero to 350 degrees or a total of 3 6
directions l
50 degrees Fahrenheit January mean minimum used as temperature and l
A mixing height of 1,000 meters used for all one hour and eight hour estimates Although this mixing height recommended by the EPA is different from the 731

County of Orange EIR No 573 97 Air Quality Technical Report 46
46 Page 47 48
meter or 2400 feet mixing height recommended for the airport emissions modeling it does not affect the CO dispersion at ground level
CAL3QHC was used to model 20 representative intersections in the vicinity of the project sites based on the following selection criteria 1 model the top ten intersections
based on the worst level of service LOS and 2 model the top ten intersections based on the highest trafXic volumes When there was an overlap between the above two selection
criteria other intersections were included to reach 20 intersections The 20 intersections selected for existing CO concentration modeling are as follows

a Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard
l MacArfhur Boulevard and Main Street
l Grand Avenue and Edinger Avenue
8 Red Hill Avenue and Edinger Avenue
l Red Hill Avenue and Walnut Avenue
l Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard
a Jamboree Road and Michelson Drive
l Jamboree Road and Main Street
l Red Hill Avenue and MacArthur Boulevardl

B e Parkway and Rockfield Boulevard l Bake Parkway and Muirlands Boulevard

l Culver Drive and Alton Parkway
l MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road
a MacArthur Boulevard and Michelson Drive
l Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive
l Jefiey Road and Alton Parkway
l Von Karman Avenue and Campus Drive
m El Toro Road and Avenida de la Carlota
a Lake Forest Drive and Rockfield Boulevard
l Alicia Parkway and Muirlands Boulevard

The receptor locations were selected based on U S EPA guidance for the CAL3QHC model The U S EPA guidance suggests that for modeling purposes receptors should be
located where the maximum total project concentration is likely to occur and where the general public is likely to have access This means that receptors should be located at
sites in the vicinity of those portions of the intersection where trafic is likely to be the greatest and the most congested e g along a queue The general criteria that were used
for receptor siting included 1 places of expected one hour and eight hour maximum concentrations 2 places where the general public has access over the time periods i e
one hour and eight hours specified by the AAQS and 3 reasonableness Receptors were located at least three meters ten feet from the edge of each of the traveled
roadways that converge at the intersection and where the general public has access At a minimum receptors were located near the comer and at mid block for each approach and
departure at the intersection Receptors were also placed on both sides of the roadways In the case of long approaches to intersections or two neighboring intersections at

County of Orange EIR No 573 8 8 Air Quality Technical Report 47
47 Page 48 49
distances longer than 100 meters 3,280 feet receptors were modeled at 25 and 50 meters 82 and 164 feet from the intersection comer For modeling purposes the
receptors were modeled at sites located vertically at 1.8 meters 5.9 feet above the ground These receptor locations are shown in Figure 3

To reflect emissions in the general vicinity not accounted for in the modeling effort a background concentration is used For this analysis the background level was based on
U S EPA guidelines U S EPA November 1992 the second highest one hour CO ambient concentration monitored at the nearest air monitoring station from 1993 to 1997
This background level was added to the calculated one hour CO project concentration to get the overall one hour CO level at the modeled receptor sites Similarly the second
highest eight hour CO ambient concentration monitored at the nearest air monitoring station from 1993 to 1997 was added to the calculated eight hour CO project
concentration to get the overall eight hour CO level at the modeled receptor sites It should be noted that ambient CO concentrations monitored at the Central Orange County
air monitoring station 12 ppm for the one hour period and 8 ppm for the eight hour period were added to the project CO concentrations at intersections in the cities of
Orange Santa Ana and Tustin Ambient CO concentrations monitored at the Saddleback Valley air monitoring station 7 ppm for the one hour period and 4.1 ppm for the eight
hour period were added to the project CO concentrations at intersections in the cities of Irvine Laguna Beach Laguna Hills Lake Forest Mission Viejo and San Juan
Capistrano The second highest ambient CO concentrations monitored at the Central Orange County air monitoring station were slightly higher than the ambient CO levels
projected at this location in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook Tables 5 2 and 5 3 SCAQMD 1993 The second highest ambient CO concentrations monitored at the
Saddleback Valley air monitoring station were slightly lower than the ambient CO levels projected at this location in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook Tables 5 2 and 5 3
SCAQMD 1993 These background CO concentrations used in this air quality analysis reflected a higher concentration than if the projected CO concentrations in the CEQA Air
Quality Handbook were used
The existing peak hour trtic and volume capacity ratio data were taken from the tr ic study prepared by Austin Foust Associates Inc October 1999 for the MCAS El Tom
Master Development Program Airport System Master Plan The p m peak hour traffic data were utilized fur the CAL3QHC computer modeling as the worst case scenario
since the p m peak hour traffic is higher than the a m peak hour traffic
The CAL3QHC computer modeling results for the existing conditions are shown below in Tables 15 and 16 The existing CO concentrations were estimated to range between
7.2 and 13.8 ppm for the one hour period and from 4.2 to 9.3 ppm for the eight hour period The modeled data indicate that the existing one hour CO concentrations are in
compliance with the one hour State and federal CO standards However the existing eight hour CO concentrations exceeded the eight hour State and federal CO standards at
the following two intersections Bristol StreetlMacArthur Boulevard and MacArthur Boulevard Main Street The modeled CO concentrations shown included the monitored

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 48
48 Page 49 50
SOURCE LSA Associates Inc
No Scale

County of Orange Figure 3
CO Hot Spot Modeling Locations Existing Condition 49
49 Page 50 51
Table 15 Existing l Hour CO Concentrations Year 1998 No Project Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide
Concentrations for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS

I
I I

I Brtstot hlac khur I 13.4 q 13.5 If 13.8 1 13.7 m1 3 1 2 .9 13.5 I I

154 MacArthur Main 13.2 13.4 13.3 13.6 13.1 13.1 12.9 13.3 12.8 13.1 12.8 4 12.9 90 Grand Edinger

CITY OF TUSTlN Y Y t hcd Ihti linger
72 Red Hill Walnut 23 Red Hill Irvine

26 Jamboree Irvine

Jambore Michelson 156 Jamboree Main
151 Red Hill MacArthur 268 Bake Rockfield
260 Bake Muirlands 136 Culver Alton
195 MacArthur Jamboree 173 MacArthur Michelson
201 Irvine Mesa

13.2 13.3 13.3 13.4 12.9 13.2 12.7 13.1 12.7 12.9 13.0 12.9 ~ E
I A A 13.4 13.3 13.2 12.7 1 12.8 13.1 13.0
12.9 13.0 13.1 13.0 1 125 12.6 12.8 12.8 12.5 12.7 12.6 12.7 12.8 13.0 13.0 13.0 1 12.9 13.0 12.6 12.7 12.5 12.5 12.6 12.7

~ 13.1 12.9 12.9 13.2 1 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.8 12.5 12.6 12.5 12.6
F I I I L 1 I
A

8.4 8.4 8.2 7.9 8.2 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.2 ii 0 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.2 7.9 8.1 7.9 7.9 7.9 8.1 7.9 8.2

8.3 8.1 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.9 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.2 7.8 8.0 8.1 8.1 7.8 8.0 7.9 7.8 7.8 8.1 7.5 7.5
8.2 8.1 8.0 8.0 7.8 8.1 7 6 7.5 7.8 8.0 7.8 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.4 8.0 7.7 8.1 7.7 8.0 7.9 7.8 7.9 8.1
8.2 8.1 8.1 8.1 7.7 7.8 7.6 7.8 7.8 8.1 7.7 8.0 8.4 8.1 8.2 8.3 7.8 7.8 8.0 8.1 7.7 8.0 7.8 7.8
7.7 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.7 7.2 7.2 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.3

I RECl SW CORNER 2 REC2 SECORNER
3 REC3 NECORNER 4 REC4 NW CORNER
5 RECS S DEPARTURE MID BLOCK 6 REC6 N APPROACH MID BLOCK
7 REC7 E DEPARTURE MID BLOCK 8 RECS W APPROACH MID BLOCK
9 REC9 N DEPARTURE MID BLOCK lo REClO S APPROACH MID BLOCK
1 I REC 11 W DEPARTURE MIDBLOCK 12 REC 12 E APPROACH MID BLOCK
13 The ambient one hour CO concentration 12.0 ppm the second highest one hour CO concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Central Orange County Air Monitoring Station between the years 1993 to 1997 is added to the calculated one hour levels
141 This intersection was analyzed for comparison with the year 1998 plus Alternative B scenario only it is not among the intersections with the ten highest traffic volumes or ten worst levels of service 151 The ambient one hour CO concentration 7.0 ppm the second highest one hour CO concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Saddleback Valley Air Monitoring Station between the years
1993 to 1997 is added to the calculated one hour levels
Source SCAQMD and LSA Associates Inc 1999
County of Orange EIR No 573 41 Air Quality Technical Report 50
50 Page 51 52
Table 16 Existing Hour CO Concentrations Year 1998 No Project Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration for Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS
I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 380 IBristol MacArthur 1 9.0 1 9.1 1 9 .3 1 9.2 1 8 .8 1 8 .9 1 8 .7 1 9.0 1 8 .6 1 8.7 1 8 .8 1 9.1 I
154 MacArthur Main 8 .8 9.0 8 .9 9.1 8.8 8.8 8.6 8.9 8 .6 8 .8 8.6 8 .6
90 Grand Fxlinger 89 89 90 86 8.8 85 8.8
t 8 .5 8,6 87 8 .6 CITY OF TUSTIN I I I 1 9 4 Red Hill Edinger T 9.0 8 .9 8 i 8 .8 8.4 8.7 8.5 8.7 8 .5
8 .6 8 .8 8 .7 72 Red Hill Walnut 8.6 8 .7 8 .8 8 .7 8.4 8.4 8.6 8.6 8 .4 8 .5
8 .4 8 .5 2 3 Red Hill Irvine 8 .6 8 .7 8 .7 8 .7 8.6 8.7 8.4 8.5 8 .4 8 .4 8 .4
8 .5 26 fambiwe Rc Irvine I 88 86 8 .6 88 84 84 8.4 8.6 8 .4 8,4 8 .4 8.4

kTY f W HWW4 I I I I 1 f I ,7 l 1 i I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I t

175 Jamboree Michelson I 5 .2 1 5.1 I 5.1 1 4.9 1 4.7 1 4.9 I 4 .8 1 4.8 1 4 .8 1 4.9 1 4.8 t 4.9 I 1 156 Jamboree Main
5.0 5.1 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.9 4 .7 4.7 4 .7 4.9 4.7 4.9 151 Red Hill MacArthur 5.0 4.9 4.9
4.9 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4 .8 4.8 4.8 4.9 268 Bake Rockfield 4.7 4 .8 4.9 4.9 4.7
4 .8 4 .7 4.7 4 .7 4.9 4.5 4.5 260 Bake Muirlands 4.9 4.9 4 .8 4 .8 4.7
4.9 4.5 4.5 4 .7 4 .8 4.7 4.9 1 3 6 Culver Alton 4.9 5.1 5.1 4.8 4.6 4.9 4.6 4.8 4.7 4 .7 4 .7 4.9

1 9 5 MacArthur Jamboree 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.6 4 .7 4.5 4.7 4 .7 4.9 4.6 4.8
1 7 3 MacArthur Michelson 5.1 4.9 4.9 5 .0 4.7 4.7 4 .8 4.9 4 .6 4 .8 4.7 4.7 2 0 1 Irvine Mesa
4.6 4 .5 4 .5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4 .2 4.2 4 .5 4 .5 4,3 4.3 1 3 9 Jeffrey Alton 4.9
5 .0 5 .0 4.9 4 .7 4.8 4.6 4.6 4 .7 4.8 4.8 4.7 187 Von Karman Campus 47 4.7 I
4 7 4.7 4.4 4,6 4 5 4 J 4 .5 4.6 4.5 4.6 r i

280 1 El Toro Avd Carlo a
266 Lakc Forest Rc Rockfield

~CITY QF QmsIu 265 1Alicia Muirlands 4.7 I 4.9
Note Concentrations are in parts per million ppm federal and State g hour CO standard is 9 ppm
1 RECl SWCORNER 2 J REC2 SECORNER

3 REC3 NECORNER 4 REC4 NWCORNER
5 REC5 S DEPARTURE MID BLOCK 6 REC6 N APPROACH MID BLOCK
7 RECJ E DEPARTURE MID BLOCK 8 REC8 W APPROACH MID BLOCK
9 REC9 N DEPARTURE MID BLOCK 101 REC 10 S APPROACH MID BLOCK
1 i REC 11 W DEPARTURE MID BLOCK 121 REC 12 E APPROACH MID BLOCK
131 The ambient eight hour CO concentration 8.0 ppm the second highest eight hour concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Central Orange County Air Monitoring Station between the years of 1993 and 1997 is added to the product of the calculated one hour levels multiplied by a persistent factor of 0.7
141 Numbers in bold represent exceedance of the standard 15 This intersection was analyzed for comparison with the year 1998 plus Alternative B scenario only it is not among the intersections with the ten highest traflic volumes or
161 The ambient eight hour CO concentration 4.1 ppm the second highest eight hour concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Saddleback Valley Air Monitoring Station between the years of 1993 and 1997 is added to the product of the calculated one hour levels multiplied by a persistent factor of 0.7
Source SCAQMD and LSA Associates Inc 1999

County of Orange EIR No 573 12 Air Quality Technical Report 51
51 Page 52 53
ambient or background CO concentrations and the projected CO concentrations at each intersection
Local Air Quality Due To Aircraft Operations
The airport air quality model used in this analysis the Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System EDMS provides both an emission inventory and projections of air
pollutant concentrations around airports EDMS has been used for assessing air quality at civilian airports and military air bases The model was developed by the FAA in
cooperation with the United States Air Force USAF EDMS is required by the FAA and EPA when evaluating airport related emissions and is used to generate an inventory
of emissions generated by sources on and around the airport or air base and to calculate pollutant concentrations in this environment It is one of the few air quality assessment
tools specifically engineered for the aviation community Version 3.1 I the latest version available of the EDMS was used for the evaluation of the Airport System Master Plan
ASMP
The EDMS air quality model can process line point and area sources at an airport EDMS includes emissions and dispersion calculations a database of emission factors for
civilian and military aircraft a database of emission factors for civilian ground support equipment and military aerospace ground equipment auxiliary power units vehicle and
stationary source emission factor data and a report module that generates standardized reports The model converts the input information for the various sources into emissions
rates and prepares an emissions inventory Based on the source and receptor locations and the meteorological data including temperature the Pasquill Gifford stability class
wind speed and direction the EDMS disperses the emissions using a Gaussian dispersion to predict the pollutant concentrations at modeled receptor locations

Although EDMS is the model required by the EPA and FAA for the evaluation of emissions from airport sources select data within the model require consideration before
use due to the unique characteristics that may exist at specific airport locations In these cases EDMS tries to make allowances for the users to enter their own data and will
perform parameter validation where possible The pollutants currently included in the emissions inventory are CO HC NO SOX and PMlo from aircraft exhaust Other
pollutants such as lead ozone and hazardous air pollutants have not been included in the application because the data required to include these emissions are not available and in
most cases there is no industry accepted methodology for considering these pollutants
In the EDMS the FAA used zero as the emission rates for particulate for many aircraft For newer aircraft engines zero is used because no data have yet been collected by the
EPA For many older aircraft zero is used because the FAA has determined that EPA rates are in substantial error and no reliable value is available Therefore this analysis

1 PM10 data for ground support equipment stationary sources and training fires is the only data
supplied by the EDMS Version 3.11 No aircraft emissions of PM10 are included

County of Change EIR No 573 43 Air Quality Technical Report 52
52 Page 53 54
did not calculate the amount of PM2 5 or PM10 from aircraft exhaust as no emission levels are produced by EDMS and no reliable value has been agreed upon
Similarly the EDMS model does not directly provide NO2 concentration data The model provides data for this pollutant as NO which includes NO2 and NO The federal
and State AAQS are written specifically in terms of NO2 rather than for the generic group of all NO To determine the quantity of NO2 in the NO projections generated by the
EDMS model conversion guidelines included in EPA CFR Parts 51 and 52 were used The guidelines state that for the annual average 75 percent of NO is N02 For the one
hour period a ten percent conversion factor previously recommended by Mr Howard Segal was used Mr Segal was one of the creators of the EDMS model while he was
with the FAA This conversion factor was and still is supported by the EPA
The EDMS was used to quantify the total emissions emissions inventory as well as to evaluate pollutant concentrations To quantify pollutant concentrations the model was
used to predict air pollutant concentrations for receptor locations that would possibly exceed the National or California Ambient Air Quality Standards NAAQS and
CAAQS This analysis requires characterization of the activity using temporals representing daily weekly monthly and annual levels of activity and use of actual
meteorological conditions
To complete the analysis one year's worth of actual meteorological data was used to evaluate pollutant levels to reflect the existing condition's base year Hourly
meteorology data Tom the National Climatic Data Center NCDC were used in EDMS for dispersion analysis Temporal factors were developed by the County's aviation
consultant P D Aviation to characterize the activity associated with the No Project scenarro

It should be noted that the 1997 1998 meteorological data were not available in a usable form TD 1440 Hourly Surface Data at the time this air quality study was done
therefore the 1996 data which were in a usable format were used The NCDC has converted all its data files to a new format TD 3280 for Y2K compliance The old files
which were compatible for EDMS use were destroyed Therefore no meteorological data are readily available for EDMS modeling use The use of 1996 data is not expected
to generate significantly difZerent peak concentrations from any typical year because 1996 is considered an average year by SCAQMD in terms of weather Therefore the
results would show a typical year's concentrations
A worst case situation was modeled for the one hour concentrations 24 hour and annual concentrations The worst case scenario included the greatest number of aircrti
operations that could realistically be expected to occur during the specified period of time along with meteorological conditions that are most conducive to high pollutant levels

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 53
53 Page 54 55
The EDMS model predicted emission concentrations at 10 sites in and around the MCAS El Toro and 11 sites in and around John Wayne Airport Figures 4 and 5 depict these
locations These receptor locations represent the locations where the highest concentrations would be expected specifically near or under the approach and departure
paths
Tables 17 and 18 show the result of the modeling for existing 1998 conditions Table 17 shows the results in the vicinity of John Wayne Airport Table 18 shows the results in
the vicinity of the MCAS El Toro site Background concentrations for CO were obtained using the second highest monitored CO levels at the Saddleback Valley air monitoring
station the closest monitoring station to the project sites They were 7.0 ppm for the one hour period and 4.1 ppm for the eight hour period For NO2 and SO2 the background
concentrations were calculated by averaging measured pollutant concentrations taken over the last three years with published data at the nearest air monitoring station that
measures such air pollutants The background concentration for NO2 was 0.143 ppm for the one hour period and 0.0213 ppm for the annual arithmetic mean AAM taken at the
North Coast Orange air monitoring station The background concentration of SO2 uras 0.018 ppm for the one hour period and 0.0028 ppm for 24 hour period

The tables show low pollutant concentrations at all the receptor locations None of the federal or State standards were exceeded around either airport

Air Toxics
Health risk assessment IRA associated with air toxics released at the MCAS El Toro and possibly at John Wayne Airport from aircraft airport GSE and diesel tieI delivery
trucks is analyzed in Appendix F G A summary of this assessment has been provided in Section 4.5 of EIR No 573

County of Orange EIR No 573 45 Air Quality Technical Report 54
54 Page 55 56
I LEGEND Receptor Locations
EIR No 573 1 SOURCE LSAAssociates Inc

Scale in Feet
0 2500 5000 77a99

County of Orange Figure 4
EDMS Dispersion Receptor Locations MCAS El Tom 55
55 Page 56 57
g I I ARuwmNDR Af
1
f h gwM fAE I I z f 2LYL Y I A

County of Orange Figure 5
1 SOURCE LSA AssucMes Inc

Scale in Feet
EDMS Dispersion Receptor Locations JWA 56
56 Page 57 58
Table 17 1998 Pollutant Concentrations JWA Worst Case Operations and Meteorology
1 Monte Vista High School c9.50 c5.55 I CO 156 0.0214 co 0224 1 x0.0043
1 Newport Beach Golf course 9,50 x5.55 0.156 1 0.0215 CO 0224 1 co 0043

1 Santa Ana Country Club c9.50 1 c5.55 f co 156 1 0.0215 CO 0224 co 0043
~ Residential Area East of I I Campus Drive

~ Sheraton Newport Beach 1 c9.50 1 c5.55 I x0.156 1 0.0244 1 CO 0224 1 0.0043
c9.50 1 c5.55 1 co 156 1 0.023 1 1 CO 0224 j 0.0043

County Superintendent of Schools c9.50 1 c5.55 co 156 1 0.0220 0.0224 KO 0043
South Terminal I 13.76 I 692 1 I 0.170 1 0.0347 0.0252 1 0.0049
Fire Station I x9.50 I c5.55 I 0.156 0.0253 CO 0224 1 co 0043
North Terminal I 11.82 695 1 0.161 0.0338 1 0.0241 1 co 0043
Executive Park I e 50 1 c5.55 I 0.156 1 0.0243 1 co 0224 1 0.0043
Sky Park
Federal Standard State Standard
9.50
35 PPm 20 PPm
c5.55
9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm

~
OS56 0.0220 0.0224 0.0043

N A 0.0534 ppm N A 0.14 ppm 0.25 ppm NIA 0.25 ppm 0.04 ppm

Source CH2M Hill and LSA Associates Inc 1999 NOTE I Includes ambient l hour CO concentration of 7 ppm and I hour CO
concentration reported by EDMS 2 Includes ambient hour CO concentration of 4.1 ppm and S hour CO
concentration reported by EDMS 3 Includes ambient 1 hour NO2 concentration of 0.143 ppm and one tenth of
the l hour NOx concentration reported by EDMS 4 Includes ambient
AAM NO2 concentration of 0.0213 ppm and 75 percent of the annual NOx concentration reported by EDMS

S J Includes ambient l hour SO2 concentration of 0.018 ppm and l hour SOx concentration reported by EDMS
6 Includes ambient 24 hour SO2 concentration of 0.0028 ppm and 24 hour SOx concentration reported by EDMS

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 57
57 Page 58 59
Table 18 1998 Pollutant Concentrations MCAS El Toru Worst Case Operations and Meteorology
tola Parkway Rt 133
ne Boulevard north
of Runway 16

lboree Road and Bake Parkway

0 .2 2 4.20 co 143 0.0214 0.0182 0.0029
c7.22 4.21 co 143 0.02 14 co 0182 0.0029

I c7.22 4.20 co 143 0.0213 CO 0182 0.0029

on Parkway and Barranca Parkway G 22 c4.20 co 143 0.0213 CO 0182 0.0029
iidential Area Leisure World c7.22 4.20 o 143 0.02 13 co 0182 0.0029
roro Golf Course I c7.22 I 4.21 I co 143 I 0.0215 I CO 0182 I 0.0029 1
I Town Irvine 7.22 x4.20 0.144 0.0214 0.0186 0.0029

ine Boulevard east of 7.30 4.27 0.144 0.02 16 0.0182 0.0029
Runway 25

sick Jail I x7.22 I K4.20 I x0.143 I 0.0215 I 0.0182 I 0.0029 I
ine Transportation
Center

leral Standard te Standard

7.22 4.22 co 143 0.0214 CO 0182 0.0029
35 PPm 9 .0 ppm N A 0.0534 ppm N A 0.14 ppm 2 0 ppm 1 9.0 ppm 0.25 ppm N A 0.25 ppm 0.04 ppm

Source CH2M Hill and LSA Associates Inc 1999 NOTE l Includes ambient l hour CO concentration of 7 ppm and l hour CO
concentration reported by EDMS 2 Includes ambient 8 hour CO concentration of 4.1 ppm and 8 hour CO
concentration reported by EDMS 133 Includes ambient l hour NO2 concentration of 0.143 ppm and one tenth of
the l hour NOx concentration reported by EDMS 4 Includes ambient AAM NO2 concentration of 0.0213 ppm and 75 percent
of the annual NOx concentration reported by EDMS S Includes ambient l hour SO2 concentration of 0.018 ppm and l hour SOx
concentration reported by EDMS 6 Includes ambient 240hour SO2 concentration of 0.0028 ppm and 24 hour
SOx concentration reported by EDMS

County of Orange EIR No 573 4 9 Air Quality Technical Report 58
58 Page 59 60
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The air quality analysis consists of the following evaluation
l Emissions inventory for five precursor pollutants carbon monoxide nitrogen oxide
sulfur oxides hydrocarbons and particulate matter

Construction emissions emissions that would be created during the construction of the project

Operational emissions emissions that would occur upon completion of each phase of construction of the project and are usually further divided into local
and regional emissions

l Dispersion evaluation for concentrations of carbon monoxide nitrogen oxides
particulate matter and sulfur oxides

This section summarizes the methodology used to determine significant impacts fium construction emissions and local and regional operational emissions from the Proposed
Project

4.1 METHODOLOGY FOR CONSTRUCTION
RELATED EMISSIONS

Prior to operating the Proposed Project construction of numerous facilities will be required The emissions associated with this construction activity were evaluated in the
following ways
l Construction Equipment
l Transport of Materials and Employees
l Fugitive Dust Demolition and Grading

4.1.1 Construction Equipment Emissions
Construction equipment usage was estimated based on a schedule of construction activities for the various alternatives Total emissions that would be generated
throughout the duration of the construction were quantified then emissions for each project alternative were distributed across the construction duration Construction
equipment usage was based on common construction practices information available in
the EPA's 1991 Nun road Engine and Vehicle Emission Study and EPA emission factors available on the EPA's website as well as emission factors included in SCAQMD's

CEQA Air Quality Handbook

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 59
59 Page 60 61
4.1.2 Transport of Materials and Employees
Construction emissions associated with on road and off road vehicles used to transport construction materials as well as construction employees were quantified EMFAC7G

was used to obtain on road emission factors Based on the anticipated construction schedule material transport needs construction employment and travel distances were
quantified

4.1.3 Fugitive Dust
The evaluation of Fugitive dust incorporated all sources of dust i e demolition and grading that might be produced during the construction phase The EPA estimates that

1.2 tons of fugitive dust are generated per acre of soil disturbed per month of activity Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors Based on the individual alternative
under consideration a quantity of land area to be disturbed and project duration were identified based on the l 2 tons factor an unmitigated fugitive dust emission was
quantified finally standard County and SCAQMD construction fugitive dust mitigation suppression procedures including SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 were
reviewed to determine the effect on the initial quantity of fugitive dust
Construction emissions reflected the sum of emissions from fugitive dust construction equipment and material employee travel These emissions were quantified for CO NOx
PMlo and ROCs

4.2 METHODOLOGY FOR OPERATIONS RELATED

To reflect the long range impact of the Proposed Project operational emissions inventory was calculated for 2005 2010 2015 and 2020 Potential project related air quality
impacts are commonly divided into regional and local impacts The regional air pollutant that exceeds the AAQS most often in Southern California is ozone As discussed earlier
ozone is not directly emitted into the atmosphere but rather is formed in the atmosphere through a complex chemical reaction Pollutants such as ROCs and NO are directly
emitted from cars airplanes and other combustion processes These are the primary chemicals that together with sunlight react to form ozone Chemical and dispersion
processes are complex and require the use of photochemical dispersion models to predict what increase in ozone and other regional pollutants might occur with a given increase in
emissions of ROCs and NO The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook uses emissions thresholds to determine significance Therefore as a surrogate for ozone
emissions of NO and ROCs were quantified The FAA's EDMS Version 3.11 model and the CARB's URBEMIS7G and EMFAC 7F and 7G models were used to calculate
the project's emissions fur these criteria pollutants

County of Orange EIR No 573 51 Air Quality Technical Report 60
60 Page 61 62
4.3 METHODOLOGY FOR LOCAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY
Both the existing 1998 setting and titure years 2005,20 10,2015 and 2020 conditions were examined For the titure year condition the following scenarios were examined
l No Project assumes no development on the MCAS El Toro site and status quo at
John Wayne Airport and l With Project alternatives as defined in Section 2.4

The following briefly summarizes the methodology to be used to quantify emissions from various sources

4.3.1 Aircraft Emissions
An emissions inventory was prepared for aircraft sources based on the standard Landing and Takeoff Cycle LTO as defined in EPA's Compilation of Air PoWant Emission
Facturs Aircraft emissions for each scenario were quantified using the EPA approved EDMS Version 3 I I This emissions inventory was based on the peak hour of total
aircraft operations for each scenario and reflected the LTO operating assumptions documented in Section 6.1 of this environmental document

4.3.2 Ground Support Equipment Auxiliary Power
Units Emissions

Emissions from ground support equipment were calculated using EPA accepted procedures Generally ground support equipment GSE provide services to the aircraft
while it is on the ground or at the gate The primary GSE associated with the existing MCAS El Toro is aircraft fueling Such fueling was accomplished using truck fueling by
tankers In addition tugs were also used Their only function was to assist in moving aircraft from parking spaces to hangers for maintenance

Default values for GSE usage available in the EDMS were used to quantify GSE emissions for each of the scenarios described previously The use of clean burning fuel
technology for GSE provision of preconditioned air and 400 Hz gate electrification by the With Project aviation alternatives would reduce project emissions by GSE Data
available from the EPA and CARB were used to identify appropriate emission factors for these equipment types Potential emissions reductions were estimated with emission
factors provided in the Technical Support fur Development of Airport Ground Support Equipment Emissions EPA May 1999

Auxiliary Power Units APU are most often on board generators that provide electrical power to the aircraft while its engines are shut down Some pilots start the on board APU
while taxiing to the gate however for the most part it is started when the aircraft reaches

County of Orange EIR No 573 54 Air Quality Technical Report 61
61 Page 62 63
the gate The on board APU is in effect a small jet engine and calculations for the emissions generated by it are similar to that of an aircraft engine operating in one power
setting only For emissions calculations purposes APUs are assigned to the same
category as GSE An APU is assigned an operating time per LTO cycle and its emission factors are given in terms of kilograms per hour External APUs used by an aircrti fall

into the category as GSE In the absence of an APU a combination of 400 Hz electric power and pre conditioned air PCA must be supplied to the aircraft at each gate to
allow for normal operation These methods usually generate little or no emissions at the airport and are not included in EDMS

4.3.3 Natural Gas Combustion and Electrical Usage
Emissions

Emissions were and are currently generated on the MCAS El Toro site and at JWA by the combustion of natural gas for space heating and water heating Projections of emissions
associated with this process utilized the total annual usage of natural gas and electricity during 1998 and during 2020 for Alternative B Emissions for the other alternatives
were calculated proportionally based on their individual passenger numbers at the airports

Off site emissions are generated due to electrical usage on the MCAS El Toro site and at JWA The generation of electrical energy by the combustion of fossil tieIs results in
emissions of'f site Emissions generated as a result of the use of electicity on the site were provided based on the square footage of on site structures With the proposed
alternatives off site emissions associated with the use of electricity on the site were estimated using the URBEMIS7G model

4.3.4 Fuel Storage Facilities Emissions
At MCAS El Toro aircraft were tieled by truck and by high speed hydrant fueling pipeline The site has a capacity of 3.3 million gallons The EDMS model was used to
estimate the emissions associated with existing and proposed tie1 facilities on the MCAS El Toro site and at JWA The EDMS was used to quantify emissions associated with all
fueling operations by both airport sites
The required on site bulk fuel storage capacity will depend upon the type of fuel delivery system used at OCX A worst case scenario will be used for analysis p urposes
whereby the delivery of airline jet A fuel will be assumed to be via truck only through the year 2020 Based on preliminary estimates of f'uel needs the anticipated storage
requirement is 7.80 million gallons for a four day supply in 2020 stored in five tanks over a 7.6 acre area The number of fuel delivery trucks from off site to the Proposed
Project site is estimated to increase from 80 trucks per day in 2005 to 488 trucks per day in 2020 The County of Orange will also explore fuel delivery by pipeline From an air
quality standpoint trucking provides a worst case scenario

County of Orange ETR No 573 5 3 Air Quality Technical Report 62
62 Page 63 64
At JWA a hydrant system has been in use for the fueling operation In addition floating roof equipped fuel tanks and vapor recovery systems are standard for the on site fire1
storage and dispensing system Emissions associated with fuel storage and dispensing operations at JWA are and would continue to be small and negligible

4.3.5 Motor Vehicle Emissions
Motor vehicle emissions are among the most substantial sources of emissions for an airport Motor vehicle emissions are the product of the number of trips associated with a
facility the average length of those trips and the corresponding pollutant emission rates The emissions evaluation examined on road vehicle emissions for vehicles entering and
exiting the project site
The total average daily trips were used to quantify emissions fkom motor vehicles Under the existing conditions 25,400 vehicles entered and exited the MCAS El Toro site
Austin Foust Associates Inc October 1999 with an average trip length of ten 10 miles which is the default trip length in URBEMIS7G for commuting in this region
This translates to a total of 254,000 daily vehicle miles traveled VMT generated by the existing use on the MCAS El Toro site Existing estimates of traffic generated by MCAS
El Toro were developed based on traffic counts collected for the roadways that served the military base at that time Under the existing conditions daily trafYic volume generated
by the John Wayne Airport JWA was 47,450 Existing estimates of trafk generated by JWA were developed based on JWA's role as a provider of general aviation and shorthaul
and medium haul domestic passenger service An average speed of 40 miles per hour was assumed An average trip length of 15.4 miles was estimated for all airpurt
passenger trips based on the origin and destination of airport passenger information provided by P D Consultants Inc

Future surface traffic levels were based on the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan RTP and estimates of local trafk prepared as part of the ASMP
The emissions inventory for on and off airport motor vehicles was quantified using emission rates from EMFAC7G

4.3.6 Total Site Emissions
Based on the emissions quantified fur each of the sources described above an emissions inventory was prepared for each alternative Emissions were quantified by year When
interim year emissions are required an interpolation between the major milestone years was used

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 63
63 Page 64 65
METHODOLOGY FOR LOCAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant concentrations were quantified for each of the alternative scenarios for comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and State Ambient Air
Quality Standards This was completed through a combination of the output of the various models used with the addition of a background concentration

4.4 I Background Concentrations
A background concentration was added to the pollutant dispersion evaluation This background level represents emissions that are not directly attributable to the sources
evaluated but reflects emissions that may occur from sources not reflected in the evaluation or emission that blows into the study area The background levels that are
recommended for use here are based on air monitoring results that are shown in Tables 3 through 6

4.4.2 On and Off Airport Concentrations
Using the EDMS the on and off airport concentrations were quantified On airport concentrations represented the emissions from sources such as aircraft ground support
equipment natural gas and fueling operations automobile access and parking etc Offairport emissions represented peak hour traffic turn movements at the 20 most sected
intersections
Pollutant concentrations were quantified using the EDMS and CAL3QHC models Concentrations were quantified for each precursor pollutant from EDMS for airport
operations and for CO from CAL3QHC fur off airport on road vehicles

4.4.3 Total Concentrations
Total concentrations were computed fur each receptor location as the sum of the background level and the results of the modeling for EDMS and CAL3QHC

4.5 METHODOLOGY FOR AQMP CONSISTENCY
Consistency is a requirement of the State CEQA Guidelines Specifically Section 15 125
requires that EIRs analyze and discuss any inconsistencies between the Proposed Project and applicable General Plans and regional plans The AQMP is considered a regional air

quality plan that governs emissions associated with all sources in the Basin and these emissions would be expected to reflect those associated with the Proposed Project The
purpose of the consistency finding is to determine whether a project is consistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plan and whether it would interfere
with the region's ability to comply with federal and State air quality standards If a

County of Orange EIR No 573 5 5 Air Quality Technical Report 64
64 Page 65 66
project is inconsistent the Lead Agency should consider modifications to the project or include mitigation in the project to eliminate the inconsistency
The 1994 and 1997 AQMP were used to determine consistency for ozone CO N02 and PMlo In January 1999 the EPA proposed to partially disapprove the provisions of the
1997 AQMP designed to attain the federal ozone standard for the Basin Separate parts of the 1997 AQMP related to CO and NO2 have previously been approved and EPA has
yet to act on that portion of the 1997 AQMP related to PMlo Therefore consistency with both the 1994 and 1997 AQMPs was conducted to ensure the project's consistency with
the latest version of approved AQMP
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook 1993 states New or amended General Plan Elements including land use zoning and density amendments Specific Plans and
significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP The Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency

1 Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely
attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP

2 Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP
The performance of the project alternatives was evaluated against these criteria

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 65
65 Page 66 67
5.0 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Under the California Environmental Quality Act projects are contrasted against thresholds to determine whether the project is likely to create a significant impact For
air quality issties significance thresholds for a project are determined by whether the project will result in one or more of the following

l Violate any ambient air quality standard
l Contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation
l Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan
l Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pullutant for which the
region is in non attainment and or l Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations

In addition to these standards the SCAQMD has identified thresholds of significance for projects in the Basin These thresholds of significance are listed in the next section

5 1 0 THRESHOLDS FOR CONSTRUCTION
EMISSIONS

If the project related construction emissions exceed any of the following a significant impact to air quality conditions would result

2.5 tons per quarter or 75 pounds per day of reactive organic compounds 2.5 tons per quarter or 100 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides NO
24.75 tons per quarter or 550 pounds per day of carbon monoxide CO
6.75 tons per quarter or 150 pounds per day of particulate matter PMlo 6.75 tons per quarter or 150 pounds per day of sulfixr oxides SO

u
ww

Any project in the Basin with construction related emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds listed above is considered significant by the SCAQMD
5.2 THRESHOLDS FOR OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
The following operational related emissions thresholds will be used

Regional Emissions Thresholds
55 pounds per day of ROC 55
pounds per day of NO 550 pounds per day of CO

150 pounds per day of PM10 150 pounds per day of SO

County of Orange EIR No 573 57 Air Quality Technical Report 66
66 Page 67 68
Local Emission Standards
California State one hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm California State eight hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm

The significance of localized project impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below State and federal CO standards If ambient
levels are below the standards a project is considered to have significant impacts if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards If ambient
levels already exceed a State or federal standard project emissions are considered significant if they increase one hour CO concentrations by 1 O ppm or more or eight hour
CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more There is no local emission threshold for other criteria pollutants

To determine whether an impact is significant the resulting concentration is compared to the State and federal AAQS If the project alternative results in an exceedance of the
ambient air quality standard that would not occur without the project it is considered a significant adverse impact If an exceedance of the AAQS will result with or without the
project alternative but the project alternative will cause an increase in the exceedance an increase in the concentrations of ten percent or greater is usually considered a significant
adverse impact Because the SCAQMD has established emissions thresholds for all five criteria pollutants and exceedance thresholds for CO only those thresholds will be
used for impact significance determination

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 67
67 Page 68 69
6 .0 PROJECT IMPACTS
Air quality impacts are usually divided into short term and long term impacts Short term impacts are usually the result of construction or grading operations Long term impacts
are associated with the built out condition and operation of the project Long term impacts are usually tier divided into regional air quality impacts and local air quality
impacts

6 1 8 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Construction activities will result in pollutant emissions over the entire course of project build out Air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment and dust will be
generated during grading and site preparation Other types of construction emissidns that would be generated include 1 construction workers traveling to and from the site
2 transport of materials to the site and 3 the release of hydrocarbons from asphalt paving operations Emissions associated with architectural coating applications are not
included due to lack of such information at this stage of planning process However emissions associated with architectural coating would be regulated by the SCAQMD
Rules and Regulations and can be minimized by using as much pre coated building materials as possible at the project site

Construction on the John Wayne Airport site would be minimal It is expected that most of the improvements at John Wayne Airport would occur during Phase 2 2006 to 2010
and would include site preparation for additional FBO area an additional transient parking ramp additional based aircrti tiedovvns on the east side relocation of Mantz
Way and new aircraft hangars and reconfiguration of west side tiedowns Construction emissions associated with these improvements would be small compared to those
associated with airport construction at the MCAS El Tore site Therefore this section focuses on the construction emissions associated with major construction work at the
proposed OCX Only emissions associated with material delivery to John Wayne Airport were included in the construction emissions calculation

The removal of hazardous materials that may exist on the site and the remediation of the MCAS El Toro site are not addressed in this air quality analysis See Section 4.16 of this
EIR Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Use for assessment of those issues

6.1 I Emissions from Construction Traffic and
Equipment Exhaust

Cons true tion Traffic
Preliminary estimates of OCX construction traffic truck traffic and employee traffic were prepared by P D based on estimated material quantity and cost estimates These
preliminary estimates were made at the level of detail appropriate for master plan preparation These estimates represent conservative planning estimates of construction

County of Orange EIR No 573 5 3 Air Quality Technical Report 68
68 Page 69 70
traffic which may differ from traffic during actual construction Actual construction
traffic may be less and will depend upon the schedule means and methods adopted by the construction contractors

Annual Distribution of Phase Construction Activities P D estimated material quantities and costs for OCX by phase To convert these phase estimates to annual
estimates the distribution highlighted in Table 19 is used for all phases Construction associated with each phase is assumed to start in the middle of Year 2 As Table 19
shows the highest concentration of construction activity occurs during Year 3 of each phase For construction traRic estimation Year 3 was assumed to represent the worst
case scenario Phase quantities and costs were therefore converted to annual estimates using Year 3 distribution Annual estimates were converted to daily estimates assuming
250 working days per year The resulting estimates therefore represent the maximum traffic to be expected during construction Construction traffic during the other years of
the phase is expected to be lower than the estimates show herein
Table 19 Assumed Distribution of Phase Activities

Component Design
Earthwork Demo
Utility
Drainage Paving

Terminal Building
Landside General Aviation

faint Fuel Support cargo
JWA Improvements

Year1 1y 2 f Year5
Variable 20 80

75 25
50 50 100

100
40 40 20 40 40 20

40 40 20 40 40 20
40 40 20
50 50 1

Source P D Aviation 1999

Truck Traffic Truck traffic includes delivery of materials only and does not include heavy equipment transport Heavy equipment traffic is relatively infrequent generally
being delivered to from the site after regular monthly maintenance compared to materials delivery Truck traffic was estimated by converting material quantities to
equivalent tonnage using appropriate unit weights Material tonnage was then converted to truck traffic by assuming an average truckload of 15 tons Material quantities were
estimated by P D Unit weights were derived from various sources including web sites of manufacturers of construction materials Building construction material delivery was
estimated at 200 pounds per square foot of building Large items e g power substation etc are assumed to be delivered on a single truck each and were thus assumed to weigh
15 tons 30,000 pounds each Since a factor is applied on the weights to represent the construction distribution for Year 3 the unit weights of large items were correspondingly
increased by the appropriate factor to ensure that a single large item generates one truck

County of Orange EIR No 573 6 0 Air Quality Technical Report 69
69 Page 70 71
delivery trip Light items were assigned negligible unit weights e g 1 pound per foot Items that are considered not to generate any delivery trips e g on site earthwork were
assigned zero unit weight Table 20 summarized the estimated daily truck delivery trips by phase one way

Table 20 Estimated Daily Truck Delivery Trips One Way During OCX Construction
C X Impruvesnents Site Preparation IPlmel f lp hase 4 8 I 1 I 0 I 2
Utility Backbone Systems Airfield System
Terminal On Site Roadways
Non Terminal Roadways Mitigation Cost
FBO Corporate General Aviation Support Systems
cargo
OCX TOTAL
JWA Improvements Corporate General Aviation

PROJECT TOTAL

I 9 8 1 1
0 0 0 0 4 8 5 0 2 0 2 3

51 11 16 O I 5 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 15 18 0
2 21 2 6 15
2 6 2 6 3 0 53
145 137 111 94

3 0 0 0 148 137 111 94

Source P D Aviation 1999
Employee Traffic Employee trtic was estimated by following the steps established in
the construction assumptions included in Appendix F B In summary with a known work rate on each type of construction activity numbers can be calculated for

construction equipment site vehicles manual laborers and foremen These numbers are added up to calculate the total number of employees working on a particular construction
activity The number of employees is then divided by 1.1 average vehicle occupancy from 1991 Southern California Origin and Destination survey in order to get the number
of one way employee commute trips per day This number is then multiplied by two to get the total number of employee commute trips per day fur the particular construction
activity

Construction Equipment
At this stage of the project planning detailed information for the types and numbers of construction equipment to be used on site is nut available However based on the
amount of work to be completed and the rate of work to be done plus some assumptions the types and numbers of construction equipment can be determined Appendix F B
includes the assumptions made to determine the types and numbers of construction equipment needed during each phase as well as fur each category of the construction
activities such as grading demolition pipe and utilities installation curbs and gutters installation asphalt paving wall construction building construction and landscaping

County of Orange ETR No 573 61 Air Quality Technical Report 70
70 Page 71 72
Table 21 shows the construction trtic and equipment exhaust emissions by phase for the Proposed Project Alternative B Table 21 shows that emissions associated with
construction traffic and equipment exhaust fluctuate between different years during a construction phase as well as fluctuate between different construction phases Emissions
would be the greatest during the third year of each phase because the majority of construction work would occur during the third year Further it can been seen that Phase
1 would have the highest emission levels among the four construction phases The year 2003 or the third year of Phase 1 construction would have the highest peak day emission
levels fur any year over the 20 years of construction Appendix F B includes the more detailed calculations leading to the total emissions fiom construction traffic and
equipment exhaust It can been seen that NOx emissions would exceed the daily threshold of 100 pounds per day for construction during most of the construction years
except the fifth year of Phases 2,3 and 4 CO emissions would exceed the daily threshold of 550 pounds per day for the third year of Phases 1 and 2 and the fourth year of Phase 2
ROC emissions would exceed the daily threshold of 75 pounds per day during the third year of Phases 1 and 2 SOx emissions are not expected to exceed the daily threshold
during the entire construction period Although particulate emissions from vehicle and equipment exhaust are not expected to exceed the daily threshold they need to be
combined with fugitive dust emissions from other sources to be discussed later to assess their significance The primary concern of pollutant emission from construction traffic
and equipment exhaust is NOx The projected emission levels under the Proposed Project exceed the daily thresholds established by the SCAQMD

For other project alternatives no such detailed calculation is provided due to lack of similar information for the construction activities However assuming similar
distribution of the construction work emission levels would fluctuate similar tu those illustrated above for the Proposed Project Exceedance of the daily threshold is expected
for all project alternatives except under the No Project 2020 Alternative E scenario

6.1.2 Fugitive Dust
Construction of the Proposed Project Alternative B would result in fugitive dust emissions from demolition grading hauling transport excavation dumping reclamation
and other soil disturbance activities Table 22 shows the estimated total daily fugitive dust emissions from these activities by phase and year Similar to construction traffic
equipment exhaust emissions daily fugitive dust emissions also fluctuate between the phases and between the years within a construction phase

County of Orange EIR No 573 6 2 Air Quality Technical Report 71
71 Page 72 73
Table 21 Construction Traffic And Equipment Exhaust Emissions Proposed Project
SCMMWiU
Phase 1 2001
Phase I 2002
Phase 1 2003
Phase 1 2004
Phase 1 2005 Half a year of Construction Activity
Phase 2 2006
Phase 2 2007

Phase 2 2008
Phase 2 2009
Phase 2 20 10 Half a year of Construction Activity
Phase 3 2011
Phase 3 2012
Phase 3 2013

phase 3 2014
3hase L 3 20 15 Half a year of Construction Activity
Phase 4 2016

Phase 4 2017
hase 4 20 18
hase 4 2019

hase 4 2020 Half a year of Construction Activity
EAQMD Construction Threshold

374.7 45.2 647.9 55.4 41.6
604.5 111.9 1,631.5 141.5 100.4
418.7 52.6 612.2 32.5 36.2

108.7 12.9 107.0 39 68
198.3 19.5 385.6 32.0 23.5
464.7 53.3 801.6 72.9 52.1
796.0 97.5 lp3183 123.4 84.0
587.2 54.8 831.5 46.5 46.0
103.6 96 92.2 39 5 4 l
90.8 85 178.4 14.8 10.9
251.1 30.6 422.4 37.2 25.7
462.2 63.1 767.5 69.5 44.8

238.5 22.1 321.6 20.9 17.9
75.7 72 74.3 39 45
63.3 61 122.9 10.2 74

320.2 37.3 561.5 49.3 33.9
453.9 62.0 764.7 69.5 44.3
210.1 17.6 272.9 17.7 14.7

68.3 63 70.1 39 40
550 75 100 150 150

Source P D Consultants and LSA Associates Inc 1999 NOTE l Numbers in bold represent emissions that exceed SCAQMD construction thresholds

County of Orange EIRNo 573 66 Air Quality Technical Report 72
72 Page 73 74
Table 22 Fugitive Dust Emissions Proposed Project
I Phase I 2001
Ftlgitive Dwt Emission day

110.2
Phase 12002 I 1,196.6
Phase 12003 1,445.9 1
Phase 1 2004 3,980.5

Phase 3 2013 L
Phase 3 2014
1,066.4
2,17 3
Phase 3 2015 Half a year of Construction Activity
Phase 4 2016

Phase42017
Phase 4 20 18
Phase 4 2019
Phase 4 2020 Half a year ofConstruction Activity
SCAQMD Construction Threshold

721.0
35.9 I 1

820.5
1,067.4 1
1,964.3
619.2
150

Source P D Consultants and LSA Associates Inc 1999 NOTE 11 Numbers in bold represent emissions that exceed SCAQMD construction thresholds

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 73
73 Page 74 75
It has been shown that the fourth year of each construction phase could generate the greatest amount of daily fugitive dust emissions Although demolition and earthwork
would be conducted in Year 1 and Year 2 of each construction phase paving and import of the paving materials will be done entirely in Year 4 Import of the concrete paving
materials would generate approximately 123,000 truck trips to the cities of Corona and or Irwindale and could result in large quantities of fugitive dust associated with truck travel
on paved roads SCAQMD CEQA Handbook 1993 For a single year the fourth year of Phase 2 or year 2009 could have the highest daily fugitive dust emission level among
all construction years
Total daily fugitive dust emissions associated with construction of the project during many of the construction years would exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 150 pounds per
day These exceedances are reflected in bold type in Tables 21 and 22
For other project alternatives no such detailed calculation is provided due to lack of similar information for the construction activities However assuming similar
distribution of the construction wurk figitive dust emission levels would fluctuate similar to those illustrated above for the Proposed Project Exceedance of the daily
threshold for particulate is expected fur all project alternatives except the No Project Alternative 2020 Alternative E

6.1.3 Asbestos Removal
Demolition or renovation of on site buildings structures would involve the handling of asbestos containing material The number of buildings structures with asbestos
containing material that would be demolished or renovated is provided in the Base Cleanup Plan BCP report March 1999 However demolition or renovation of
asbestos containing buildings structures requires permits from the SCAQMD SCAQMD Rule 1403 Asbestos Emissions From Demolition Renovation Activities should be
followed during the demolitiun renuvatiun process Compliance with 1403 is considered by the SCAQMD to mitigate the emissions
insignificance
SCAQMD Rule to a level of

6.2 REGIONAL AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Potential air quality impacts are commonly divided into regional and local impacts The air pollutant which exceeds the ambient air quality standards most often in Southern
California is ozone and it is a regional air pollutant As discussed previously oione is nut directly emitted into the atmosphere but rather it is formed in the atmosphere thruugh
a very complex series of chemical reactions Pollutants such as hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides are directly emitted from cars aircraft and other combustion processes
These are the primary chemicals that react to form Ozone It may take many hours fur these pollutants to mix and react to form ozune The chemical and dispersion processes
are complex and require the use of photochemical dispersion models to predict what increase in uzone and other regional pollutants might occur with a given increase in
emissions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality
County of Orange EIR No 573 6 5 Air Quality Technical Report 74
74 Page 75 76
Handbook uses emissions thresholds to determine significance Therefore as a surrogate for ozone emissions of nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons are quantified and compared to
the significance thresholds and also to region wide emission levels to get an indication of whether they will result in a significant regional air quality impact

The SCAQMD thresholds were presented in Section 5 of this report These criteria are consistent with the federal Clean Air Act definition of a significant source in an area
classified as extreme for ozone Emissions f om the Proposed Project will be from a variety of sources spread out over a very large area The SCAQMD recommends that
feasible and appropriate mitigation measures be incorporated into projects that may exceed the significance thresholds

6.2.1 Aircraft Emissions
Aircraft emissions were forecast using the methodology detailed previously P D Consultants Inc provided the aviation forecasts for the project aviation alternatives The
number of operations for each aircraft type for all aviation alternatives is provided in Appendix F C

Several assumptions in the aircraft emission assessment should be highlighted First although no specific gate taxilane assignment and taxiway selection is available at this
stage of the airport planning each aircraft was assigned to a specific gate taxilane location in the EDMS The average taxi times generated by the airport operations
simulation the SIMMOD model conducted for the Proposed Project were used in the EDMS for consistency Since the exact terminal configuration and taxi ramps and other
features are not known at this time the taxi times obtained from SIMMOD are considered the best available estimates for air quality analysis The assignment and taxi
times did not assume optimum airport operations which would minimize project emissions

Second aircraft were assigned to a specific runway using a preferential runway assignment system that is consistent with the aircraft runway assignment for the noise
modeling Integrated Noise Model for the Proposed Project It should be noted that apron taxiway runway roadway and terminal location and gate configurations could be
designed to reduce engine time and reduce fuel consumption on the ground Likewise reducing emissions from ground support equipment GSE is related to this by providing
for safer efficient circulation of all GSE and the aircraft The proper location of passenger gates baggage tieling and hangar facilities all contribute to the efficient
operation of the airport However this analysis did not assume the optimization of airport operation for minimum emissions These issues will be addressed fhther in the
mitigation section of this report A list of detailed assumptions used in the EDMS modeling is included in Appendix F D

Table 23 shows the emissions associated with aircraft operations at the airports These emissions numbers are shown in absolute terms No comparison has been made to
existing conditions

County of Orange EIR No 573 6 6 Air Quality Technical Report 75
75 Page 76 77
Table 23 Aircraft Emissions Pounds Day
l l I CO NOx ROC J SOx I pm0
Existing Conditions 1998 11,951 1,821 783 85 A II
JWA 10,300 1,567 283 70 111 MCAS El Tom 1,651 254 500 15 I2005

Proposed Project Alternative B 8,870 3,645 868 162 II
JWA 6,193 1,232 303 55 II o c x 2,677 2,413 565
107 II 2005 Alternative E No Project 8,45 8 1,702 336 76 II

JWA 8,458 1,702 MCAS El Tom 0
20 10 Proposed Project Alternative B 11,009
l WA 5,932 ocx 5,077 5,193 975 I 218 Irl
2010 Alternative E No Project 7,423 1 2,212 406 96 JWA

MCAS El Tom
20 15 Proposed Project Alternative B

JWA o c x

20 15 Alternative E No Project JWA

MCAS El Toro 2020 Alternative A
JWA
o c x
2020 Proposed Project Alternative B

J WA o c x

2020 Alternative C JWA
o c x 2020 Alternative E No Project
JWA
MCAS El Two 2020 Alternative F

JWA
MCAS El Tore 2020 Alternative G

JWA
MCAS El Toro 2020 Alternative H

JWA o c x

7,423 2,212 406 96 II
0 0 0 0 0

12,198 7,522 1,446 312 II 6,056 1,050 289 4 8 I
6,142 6,472 1,157 264 II 7,334 2,175 400 95 II
7,334 2,175 400 95 I
0 0 0 0 0 10,838 6,711 1,129 274 II

6,287 1,389 306 6 1 I4,55
1 5,322 823 213

13,297 9,20 1 1,532 370 II 6,197 1,246 298 55 II
7,100 7,955 1,234 315 II 12,753 8,972 1,435 352 II
7,576 2,003 436 104 II 5,177 6,969 999 248 1
7,243 2,135 396 9 2 WI 7,243 2,135 396 9 2 I
0 0 0 0 0 1,944 3,625 194 131 II 1,944
3,625 194 131 H
0 0 0 0 0 3,863 7,488 350 250 I

3,863 7,488 350 250 m0
0 0 0 0 9,262 5,995 1,382 261 II

5,176 2,652 332 119 I 4,086 3,343 1,050 142 I

County of Orange EIR No 573 6 7 Air Quality Technical Report 76
76 Page 77 78
Table 23 Aircraft Emissions Pounds Day
sos 2020 Alternative I 10,606 6,113 1,084 257 I
JWA 6,775 1,876 361 8 3 em o c x 3,83 1 4,237 723 174 ww
2020 Alternative J 12,194 9,005 1,366 347 II JWA 6,233 1,248 303 55 111
o c x 5,961 7,757 1,063 292 II 2020 Alternative K 6,233 1,248 303 55 II
JWA 6,233 1,248 303 55 II
MCAS El Tom 0 0 0 0 0 2020 ETRPA Nonaviation Plan 7,244 2,137 394 93 II

JWA 7,244 2,137 394 93 IMCAS
El Toro 0 0 0 0 0

Source CH2M Hill and ISA Associates Inc 1999 Note 1 J ROC emissions were obtained by multiplying 1.14 to the HC emissions reported by EDMS

123 EDMS does not report PMlo emissions by aircraft 3 Emissions interpolated fkom year 1998 and year 20 10 emissions
4 Emissions interpolated from year 2010 and year 2020 emissions

County of Change EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 77
77 Page 78 79
The Proposed Project Alternative B would generate the highest amount of CO NO ROC and SO emissions in the year 2020 Alternative C would generate the second
highest amount of CO ROC and SOX emissions in the year 2020 Alternative J would have the second highest NOx emissions in 2020 Except for Alternatives F and G all
pollutants are in general except NOx in descending order as follows following Alternatives B and C Alternative J Alternative A Alternative I Alternative H and
Alternative E Alternatives F and G have higher NO and SO emissions than Alternative E but have lower CO and ROC emissions than Alternative E

In comparison to the other pollutants the emissions of sulfur oxides and particulate is fairly low for all project alternatives The amount of sulfiu oxides emissions is
dependent on the quantity of tie1 being burned and the amount of sulfur in the fuel In general aviation fuel has a relatively low sulfur content and there has been little concern
regarding sulti oxides emissions f om airports
For the Proposed Project Alternative B an analysis of the operations which were responsible for the pollutant emissions was conducted The results show that the taxiing
of aircraft are responsible for a large part of CO and hydrocarbon HC emissions The aircraft engines are fairly inefficient at the low speeds used during the taxi process and
this results in high emission rates for these operations The aircraft approach operation was the next most significant for these two pollutants

For nitrogen oxides the takeoff and climbout procedures account for about two thirds of the emissions Nitrogen oxides emissions are primarily dependent upon the amuunt of
fuel being burned Most of the nitrogen oxides are generated during the departure when full power is required to initiate roll and climb out

The same emission generation pattern also occurs for other aviation alternatives in that taxiing accounts for a large portion of the hydrocarbon and CO emissions while
departure activities accounts for most of the nitrogen oxides emissions

6.2.2 Ground Support Equipment Auxiliary Power
Units

The Wure emissions from ground support equipment were projected for the aviation alternatives The FAA's EDMS model was used The total emissions are simply
obtained by multiplying the default emission rates for the ground support equipment times the number of aircraft operations The emission rates vary depending on the type
of aircraft It should be noted that emissions associated with catering trucks and on site fuel delivery trucks or the pump trucks used to transfer f'uel from airport fueling systems
to individual aircraft have been included in the ground support equipment emissions calculation in the EDMS Emissions associated with off site fuel delivery trucks or the
trucks transporting fuels from off site tieI sources to the airport fuel storage systems estimated to increase from 80 trucks per day in 2005 to 488 trucks per day in 2020 are
calculated separately later in the emission calculation for airport related direct motor vehicle emissions The results of the GSE emissions analysis are presented in Table 24

County of Orange EIR No 573 6 9 Air Quality Technical Report 78
78 Page 79 80
Table 2 4 Ground Support Equipment Emissions Pounds Day
1 co'i r NC so x 1 PMIM
Existing 1998 6,98 1 517 279 15 22 JWA 5,768 482 166 14 19

MCAS El Toro 1,213 35 113 1 3 2005 Proposed Project
Alternative B 9,918 1,067 308 28 42 JWA 4,046 501 135 13 21
o c x 5,872 566 173 15 21 2005 Alternative E No
Project 5,460 576 169 15 23 JWA 5,460 576 169 15 23
MCAS El Toro 0 0 0 0 0 20 10 Proposed Project
Alternative B 14,807 1,608 457 41 62 JWA 3,180 446 112 12 19
o c x 11,627 1,162 345 29 43 2010 Alternative E No
Project 6,164 698 196 18 28 JWA 6,164 698 196 18 28
MCAS El Toro 0 0 0 0 0 20 15 Proposed Project
Alternative B 17,113 1,874 529 47 71 JWA 3,657 480 125 12 20
o c x 13,456 1,394 404 35 51 2015 Alternative E No
Project 5,998 681 191 18 28 JWA 5,998 681 191 18 28
MCAS El Toro 0 0 0 0 0 2020 Alternative A 16,568 1,790 510 46 68
JWA 4,628 555 151 15 23 o c x 11,940 1,235 359 31 45
2020 Proposed Project
Alternative B 19,793 2,176 610 55 82 J WA 4,293 515 140 14 21

o c x 15,500 1,661 470 41 61 2020 Alternative C 18,691 1,993 572 50 75
JWA 8,907 769 258 22 30 o c x 9,784 1,224 314 28 45
2020 Alternative E No
Project 5,832 664 186 17 27 JWA 5,832 664 186 17 27

MCAS El Toro 0 0 0 0 0 2020 Alternative F 9,956 751 272 21 27
JWA 9,956 751 272 21 27 MCAS El Tom 0 0 0 0 0

County of Orange EIR No 573 m Air Quality Technical Report 79
79 Page 80 81
Table 24 Ground Support Equipment Emissions
Pounds Day

L co N Roe Iso m J ~Mro I A
2020 Alternative G 17,774 1,401 490 3 8 5 0 J WA I 7,774 1,401 490 38 50

MCAS El Tom 0 0 0 0 0 2020 Alternative H
14,783 1,554 453 41 6 0 JWA 8,217 704 235 2 0 2 7

o c x 6,566 850 218 21 33 2020 Alternative I
15,945 1,680 488 43 6 4 JWA 6,219 682 195
18 2 7 o c x 9,726 998 293 25 3 7

2020 Alternative J 19,666 2,180 608 55 8 2 JWA 4,166 519
138 14 21 o c x 15,500 1,661 470 41 61

2020 Alternative K 4,166 519 138 14 21 JWA 4,166 519
138 14 21 MCAS El Tore 0 0 0 0 0

2020 ETRPA Nonaviation Plan 5,832 664 186 17 2 7
JWA 5,832 664 186 17 2 7 MCAS El Toro 0 0
0 0 0

Source CH2M Hill and LSA Associates Inc 1999 Note 11 Emissions calculated by multiplying a factor of 1.14 to the HC emissions reported by EDMS

Z Emissions interpolated from year 1998 and year 20 10 emissions 3 Emissions interpolated fkom year 2010 and year 2020 emissions

County of Orange EIR No 573 n Air Quality Technical Report 80
80 Page 81 82
The emissions for ground support equipment are lower than aircraft emissions for the same aviation alternative except for CO which shows higher emissions than those
generated by the aircraft except for Alternatives E and K The emissions may be reduced to even lower levels through measures discussed later in the mitigation section
including the use of alternative technologies such as electric driven liquefied petroleum gas LPG or compressed natural gas CNG powered equipment

The proposed airport at MCAS El Toro similar to John Wayne Airport will have preconditioned air and 400 Hz electric power supply at each gate This standard equipment
will help eliminate or minimize the need for APU use while the aircraft parks at the gate Emissions associated with the use of APUs were calculated as part of the EDMS's
results but represent potential emissions reduction by the Proposed Project with proper design

6.2.3 Natural Gas Consumption and Electricity Usage
On site combustion of natural gas for space heating and water heating and off site electrical usage will also contribute to the daily emissions of the project The generation
of electrical energy by the combustion of fossil fuels results in additional emissions offsite Emission factors taken from the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook were
utilized to determine emission levels fkom these sources Emissions associated with onsite energy consumption were calculated based on the projected annual consumption of
194850,000 lcw hr yr of electricity and 340,440 therms r of natural gas at OCX and 36534,375 kwhr Hr of electricity and 63,833 therms yr of natural gas at JWA for
Alternative B in 2020 Emissions associated with other alternatives were calculated proportionally based on their individual passenger numbers at the airports Emissions
associated with the ETRPA Nonaviation Plan were calculated with the URBEMIS7G model based on the proposed land uses excluding fireplace and wood stove emissions
in winter season The emissions from natural gas combustion and electrical usage for each proposed alternative are shown in Table 25 Emissions from electricity
consumption would be much higher than those from natural gas consumption The Proposed Project Alternative B and Alternative J would have the highest emissions
from energy consumption except CO and ROC for which the ETRPA Nonaviation Plan would have
the highest emissions followed by Alternative C Alternatives A and G then Alternative I Alternative H Alternative F Alternative E and Alternative K Appendix

F E shows the detailed breakdown of these emissions calculations

6.2.4 Fuel Storage and Dispensing
Fuel storage and dispensing facilities can be a significant suurce of hydrocarbon HC emissions The EDMS model was used to estimate the quantity of HC emissions at the
project sites The EDMS model bases HC emissions upon the annual fuel consumption at the airports in question Table 26 lists the emissions associated with fuel storage and
dispensing under the worst case scenario with no mitigation

County of Orange EIRNo 573 72 Air Quality Technical Report 81
81 Page 82 83
Table 25 Energy Consumption Emissions Pounds Day
7 co R g ROC r 7 pwo Existing 1998 13.7 79.3 10 74 l 25
JWA 13.2 76 08 74 25 1 MCAS El Tore 05 32 02 00 I 00
2005 Proposed Project Alternative B 50.6 291.2 27 29.9 10.0
JWA 14.7 84.6 08 l 8 7 29 o c x 35.9 206.6 19 21'2 71

2005 Alternative E No Project 20.3 117.1 11 12.0 40
JWA 20.3 117.1 11 1 12.0 40 1 MCAS El Toro 0 0 0 0 0

20 10 Proposed Project Alternative B 85.6 492.3 46 50.5 16.9
JWA 14.7 84.6 08 8 7 o c x 70.9 407.7 3 8 l 41'8 2 9 14'0

2010 Alternative E No Project 20.3 117.1 11 12.0 40
JWA 20.3 117.1 11 12.0 40 MCAS El Toro
0 0 0 0 0
20 15 Proposed Project ~ Alternative B 107.3 617.1 58 I 63.4 21.2

JWA 17.5 100.9 10 10.4 35
ocx 89.8 516.2 48 53.0 17.7 2015 Alternative E No

Project 20.3 117.1 11 l 12.0 40 ~ JWA 20.3 117.1 11
12.0 4 0 MCAS El Toro 0 0 0 0 0

I 2020 Alternative A Total 94.2 542.1 50 55.6 18.5

JWA o c x

2020 Proposed Project
~ Alternative B Total I JWA o c x

I 2020 Alternative C Total JWA
o c x
2020 Alternative E No Project Total

JWA MCAS El Toro

2020 Alternative F Total JWA
MCAS El Toro

22.6 130.1 12 13.3 4 4 71.6 412.0 38 42.3 14'1
128.9 20.3 741.7 117 l 69 11 76.1 12.0 25.4 40 108.6 624.6 58 64.1 21'4
126.1 726.5 68 74s 24'8 38.0 219.0 21 l 22.5 7 5
88.1 507.5 47 l 52.0 17'3 l
31.6 182.2 17 18.7 62 31.6
182.2 17 18.7 6 2 L 0 0 0 0 0

52.8 303.6 28 31.1 10.4 52.8 303.6 28 31.1 10.4
0 0 0 0 0 1

County of Orange EIR No 573 73 Air Quality Technical Report 82
82 Page 83 84
Table 25 Energy Consumption Emissions Pounds Day
c o SUM PM0 W 2020 Alternative 94.2 542.2 50
55.6 18.5 JWA 94.2 542.2 50 55.6 18.5

MCAS El Toro 0 0 0 0 0 2020 Alternative H Total
78.4 451.1 43 l 46.2 15.4 JWA 40.7 234.2 22 24.0 80

o c x 37.7 216.9 21 22.2 74
2020 Alternative I Total 82.9 477.1 44 1 49.0 16'3 JWA 26.4 151.8 14 15.6 52

o c x 56.5 325.3 30 33.4 11'1
2020 Alternative J Total 128.9 741.7 69 76.1 25'4 l JWA 20.3 117.1 11 12.0 40

o c x 108.6 624.6 58 l 64.1 21'4
2020 Alternative K Total 20.3 117.1 11 l 12.0 40 JWA 2 0 .3 117.1 11 I
12.0 40 MCAS El Toro 0 0 0 0 0

2020 ETRPA Nonaviation Plan
JWA MCAS El Torn

Source P D Consultants and LSA Associates Inc 1999 Note l Energy consumption provided by P D Consultants for the Existing 1998 Condition
Z Energy natural gas consumption by proposed on site land uses estimated by URE3EMIS7G

County of Orange EIRNo 573 14 Air Quality Technical Report 83
83 Page 84 85
Table 26 Fuel Storage and Dispensing Emissions Pounds Day
Existing 1998 JWA
MCAS El Tore 2005 Proposed Project

Alternative B JWA
o c x 2005 Alternative E No
Project JWA
MCAS El Tore 20 10 Proposed Project
Alternative B JWA
o c x 2010 Alternative E No
Project JWA
MCAS El Tore 20 15 Proposed Project
Alternative B JWA
o c x 20 15 Alternative E No
Proj ect JWA
MCAS El Tore 2020 Alternative A

JWA o c x
2020 Proposed Project Alternative B
JWA o c x

2020 Alternative C JWA
o c x 2020 Alternative E No
Project JWA
MCAS El Tore

County of Orange EIR No 573 75 Air Quality Technical Report 84
84 Page 85 86
Table 26
Fuel Storage and Dispensing Emissions Pounds Day

j C O a 4 ROC f SOx I1 c 2020 Alternative F I II 1 3 WI

J W A II II 13 II MCAS El Tore 0 0 0 0
2020 Alternative G LI II 24 II JWA WI II 24 II
MCAS El Tom 0 0 0 0
2020 Alternative H w WI 40 II JWA II II 10 II

o c x 1 I 30 II 2020 Alternative I 111 I 4 8 IJWA
mm II 7 II
o c x MI 41 I 2020 Alternative J I 8 4 IJWA

II 6 II
o c x II II 78 I2020 Alternative K II I 6 II

JWA I I 6 II MCAS El Toro 0 0 0 0
2020 ETRPA H H I II
Nonaviation Plan I I 7 II
JWA I I 7 I MCAS El Toro 0 0 0 0

Source CH2M Hill P D Consultants and LSA Associates Inc 1999 Note 11 ROC emissions obtained by multiplying HC emissions reported by the EDMS by a factor of
1.14

County of Orange EIR No 573 76 Air Quality Technical Report 85
85 Page 86 87
Alternatives B and J will generate the greatest amount of HC followed by Alternative C Alternative A Alternative I Alternative H Alternative G Alternative F and then
Alternative E the No Project Alternative Alternative K and the ETRPA Non Aviation Plan

Most modem airports such as John Wayne Airport utilize vapor recovery controls and in fact vapor recovery would probably be required for OCX by the SCAQMD For jet
fuel vapor control is accomplished by the use of floating roof tanks and hydrant fueling systems Vapor recovery is used as part of the dispensing system for general aviation
gas Both a vapor recovery system and a hydrant fueling system are expected to be incorporated into the design of all aviation alternatives for OCX hydrants would only be
used for commercial jet aircraft GA aircrafk would not use a hydrant tieling system Therefore all emissions associated with fkel storage and tie1 dispensing from the he1
storage facilities at OCX would be reduced to zero pounds per day This is a potential emissions reduction for the Proposed Project equipped with proper design and advanced
technology This issue is discussed further in the mitigation section of this document

6.2.5 Other Stationary Sources
There would be very limited amounts of solvents and paints touch ups only being used at either airport JWA or OCX The use of volatile paints and solvents in the Basin is
restricted by current air quality regulations Current use of volatile paints is restricted and mostly confined to spray booths Non oil based and non toluene thinned such as
water based paints will be used at both airports The use of solvents such as PCE and TCE has been greatly reduced at JWA Nonvolatile solvents will be used as degreasers
and degreasing operations will be mostly done in spray booths to confine emissions Therefore emissions associated with solvents and paints will be mitigated by local
regulations and emission control devices to near zero No emissions were calculated for these sources

There will be no engine testing and training fire operations expected at these two airports No emissions were calculated for these sources activities De icing activity will be
extremely limited at these airports with negligible emissions There is no incinerator proposed at the MCAS El Toro site No emissions were calculated for incineration

6.2.6 Directly Generated Motor Vehicle Emissions
Motor vehicular emissions will be substantial for all project alternatives The No Project
2020 scenario would generate the most motor vehicular emissions in light of the increased travel time and VMT necessarily incurred in order to drive to airports at

locations remote from current or future population centers Two sets of vehicular projections are presented First vehicular emissions that are directly generated by the
project alternatives were forecast That is emissions for any vehicular trips that either start or end at the project sites are addressed in this section In the following section
regional emissions due to project alternatives are addressed Regional emissions account
County of Orange EIR No 57j n Air Quality Technical Report 86
86 Page 87 88
for the fact that people will have to drive shorter distances to reach certain facilities such as the passenger airport which is part of the Proposed Project and longer distances under
the No Project 2020 scenario
The Proposed Project and its alternatives would generate vehicular emissions on a daily basis According to Austin Foust Associates Inc the traffic study forecasts total
average daily trips by proposed on site uses at the MCAS El Toro site and continuing uses at John Wayne Airport Because no traff7c analysis was conducted for Alternatives
H I J and K emissions associated with these alternatives were derived from comparing the annual passenger numbers projected for them It should be noted that Alternatives H
and I have less projected traffic than the Proposed Project Alternative B on the roadway network in the project vicinity therefore they would be expected to have lower vehicular
emissions than the Proposed Project Alternative J has the same projected passenger numbers as Alternative B with different runway layout and would be expected to have
traffic volumes in the project vicinity similar to those of Alternative B Alternative K has a projected passenger number higher than Alternative B but would be located at an
alternative site that may be in or outside of Orange County For comparison purposes emissions generated at the alternative site not available at this time are not included for
Alternative K Table 27 shows the project related direct vehicular emissions for John Wayne Airport from existing condition to the year 2020 scenarios

An average trip length of 15.4 miles was used for all passenger trips at JWA in URBEMIS7G It was calculated for all passenger trips based on passenger origin and
destination data provided by P D Consultants Inc as described earlier in the existing emissions calculation An average speed of 40 miles per hour was used to account for
traveling on both freeways and surface streets during both peak hours and non peak hours

Air pollutant emissions associated with vehicular traffic trips for John Wayne Airport would increase slightly from their existing levels and remain the same f'rom 2005 to 2020
under the No Project scenario Alternative E due to the same number of airport related trips projected Under the Proposed Project Alternative B airport traffic related air
pollutant emissions in the vicinity of JWA would first decrease from their current levels and steadily increase in the vicinity of JWA from 2005 to 2020 to a level still below their
current levels In year 2020 airport traffic related air pollutant emissions at John Wayne Airport would be the greatest under Alternative G then Alternative F Alternative H
Alternative E No Project and the ETRPA Nonaviation Plan same level as No Project Alternative C Alternative I Alternative A Alternative B and Alternatives J and K
Vehicular emissions associated with John Wayne Airport under the Proposed Project 2020 Alternative B would be lower than those under the Existing Conditions 1998

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 87
87 Page 88 89
Table 27 Air Pollutant Emissions Vehicular Traffic Pounds Day John Wayne Airport
co Rot so x Existing Conditions
1998 11,852 3,158 1,201 NA 860
2005 Alt E No Project 12,915 3,442 1,308 NA 937 2005 Proposed Project

Alt B 8,50 1 2,265 861 NA 617 20 10 Alt E No Project 12,915 3,442 1,308 NA 937

20 10 Proposed Project Alt B 6,03 7 1,609 612 NA 438
2015 Alt E No Project 12,915 3,442 1,308 NA 937 20 15 Proposed Project
Alt B 7,101 1,892 719 NA 515 2020 Alt A 9,060 2,414 918 NA 658
2020 Proposed Project Alt B 8,165 2,176 827 NA 593
2020 Alt C 12,206 3,253 1,237 NA 886 2020 Alt E No Project 12,915 3,442 1,308 NA I 937
2020 AltF 20,920 5,569 2,120 NA 1,516 2020 Alt G 28,632 7,569 I 2,903 NA 2,059
2020 Alt H 16,330 4,352 1,654 NA 1,186
2020 Alt I 10,584 2,821 1,072 NA 769 2020 Alt J I 7,101 1 1,892 l 719 515

2020 Alt K 7,101 1,892 719 NA 515
2020 ETRPA Nonaviation Plan 12,915 3,442 1,308 NA 937

~ ~ ~
Source Austin Foust Associates and LSA Associates Inc 1999 NOTE l Not Available URBEMIS7G does not provide emissions for SOx

Table 28 shows the project related direct vehicular emissions for the MCAS El Toro site OCX from Existing Conditions 1998 to the year 2020 scenarios

An average trip length of 14.6 miles was used in URBEMIS7G for airport passenger trips at OCX based on the passenger origin and destination data provided by P D
Consultants Inc The aviation demand trips generated by P D Consultants for the year 2020 Alternative B scenario for OCX were used to calculate this average trip length for
airport passengers at OCX The number of trips from OCX to 102 subregions in Southern California was multiplied weighted by the distance to each of these
subregions then summed and divided by the total number of passenger trips to get the average trip length An average speed of 40 miles per hour was used to account for
traveling on both freeways and surface streets during both peak and non peak hours
Airport traffic related air pollutant emissions associated with the Proposed Project in the general vicinity of the MCAS El Toro site including aviation non aviation and interim

uses would increase steadily from 2005 to 2020 under Alternative B In year 2020 the ETRPA Nonaviation Plan would have the highest air pollutant emission levels at the

County of Orange EIR No 573 79 Air Quality Technical Report 88
88 Page 89 90
MCAS El Toro site Alternative B and Alternative J would have the second highest emission levels followed by Alternative C
Table 28 Air Pollutant Emissions Vehicular Traffic Pounds Day Orange County International
1 CO I 1 so x Existing 2.929 I NA 1 11
2005 interim Use I 884 I 146 103 NA 3 7
2005 Proposed Project Alt B 21,911 5,243 2,317 NA 1,410
2005 Propused Project Alt B Total 22,795 5,389 2,420 NA 1,447

2 010 Interim use 427 72 53 1 NA 18
2010 I Proposed Project Alt B 32,837 8,059 I 3,427 NA 2,173
2010 Proposed Project Alt B Total 33,264 8,13 1 3,480 NA 2,191

2015 Interim Use 286 4 8 35 NA 12
2015 Proposed Project Ah B 36,964 9,113 3,847 NA 2,45 8
2015 Proposed Project Ah B Total 37,250 9,161 3,882 NA 2,470

2020 Alt A 32,818 8,059 I 3,425 NA 2,173 2020 Proposed Project Alt B 41,563
10,289 4,3 14 NA 2,776
2020 AK 35,784 8,773 3,747 NA 2,364 2020 Alt E No Project 0 0 0 0 0

2020 Alt F 0 0 0 0 0 2020 Alt G
0 0 0 0 0 2020 Alt H 14,432 3,573
1,498 NA 964 2020 Alt I 21,647 5,359 2,247 NA 1,446

2020 Alt J 41,563 10,289 4,3 14 NA 2,776
2020 Alt K 0 0 0 0 0
2020 ETRPA Nonaviation Plan 55,520 8,596 6,311 NA 2,119

Source Austin Foust Associates and LSA Associates Inc 1999 NOTES I Based on 254,000 daily vehicle miles traveled VMT by traffic trips associated with

MCAS El Tom site in 1998
21 Not available URBEMIS7G does not provide emissions for SOX PI Alt K has no emissions generated at the MCAS El Toro site

Alternative A Alternative I and Alternative H There would be no substantial amount of vehicular trtic associated with the MCAS El Toro site under Alternative E 2020 No
Project Alternative F and Alternative G However this does not reflect those trips that would travel to other airports in the region Alternative K would have no vehicular
emissions generated at the MCAS El Toro site Vehicular emissions associated ith the 2020 Proposed Project Alternative B in the general vicinity of the MCAS El Toro site
would be higher than those under the Existing Conditions 1998 Table 29 shows the combined project related direct vehicular emissions from both the MCAS El Toro site
and John Wayne Airport Cumulatively airport trip related air pollutant emissions in the vicinity of MCAS El Toro and JWA would increase steadily under the Proposed Project
Alternative B from the Existing Conditions 1998 to year 2020 while the emission

County of Orange EIR No 573 80 Air Quality Technical Report 89
89 Page 90 91
Table 29 Air Pollutant Emissions Vehicular Traffic Pounds Day Both Airports
Conditions 1998
2005 Alt E No Project
2005 Proposed Project Alt B
2010 AltE No Project
20 10 Proposed Project Alt B
2015 Alt E No Project
2015 Proposed Project Alt B
2020 AltA
2020 Proposed Project Alt B

2020 Alt C
2020 Alt E No Project

2020 Alt F 2020 Alt G
2020 AltH
2020 Alt I 2020 Alt J

2020 Alt K 2020 ETRPA
Nonaviation Plan

12,915 3,442 1,308 NA 937
3 1,296 7,654 3,281 NA 2,064
12,915 3,442 1,308 NA 937
39,301 9,740 4,092 NA 2,629
12,915 3,442 1,308 NA 937
44,35 1 11,053 4,60 1 NA 2,985
41,878 10,473 4,343 NA 2,831

49,728 12,465 5,141 NA 3,369 47,990 12,026 4,964 NA 3,250
12,915 3,442 1,308 NA 937
20,920 5,569 2,120 NA 1,516
28,632 7,569 2,903 NA 2,059 30,762 7,925 3,152 NA 2,150

32,23 1 8,180 3,3 19 NA 2,215 48,664 12,181 5,033 NA 3,291
7,101 1,892 719 NA 515 68,435 12,038 7,619 NA 3,056

Source Austin Foust Associates and LSA Associates Inc 1999 NOTES l Not available URBEMIS7G dues not provide emissions for SOX
PI Alt K emissions include emissions generated at John Wayne Airport only
levels would remain the same between 2005 and 2020 under the No Project Alternative E scenario In year 2020 the ETRPA Nonaviation Plan would have the highest vehicular

trips related air pollutant emission levels from both airports Alternative B would have the second highest emission levels followed by Alternative J Alternative C Alternative
A Alternative I Alternative H Alternative G Alternative F and Alternative E 2020 No Project Alternative K would have the lowest vehicular emissions because they include
emissions from John Wayne Airport only Localized vehicular emissions associated with both airports combined under the Proposed Project 2020 Alternative B would be
higher than those under the Existing Conditions 1998

County of Orange EIR No 573 8l Air Quality Technical Report 90
90 Page 91 92
6.2.7 Regional Motor Vehicle Emissions
The emissions in the previous section represent the direct air emissions associated with the Proposed Project in the general vicinity of both project sites However the project
will also affect air travel characteristics outside this area As a result for large projects of this size the emissions generated directly by the project will not simply be added to the
regional totals Rather the regional system must be considered in its entirety Fur example without the proposed OCX facility John Wayne Airport would not be able to
accommodate the forecast air travel demand As a result Orange County air travel demand passengers and cargo would be forced to drive to other airports in the region
The consequence of using these ther airports is increased drive time and VMT and resulting emissions International service would likely be satisfied at LAX Domestic
service could be satisfied from a host of airports including SAN BUR ONT LAX LGB etc Based on a report published by SCAG in September 1999 it is expected that
air travel demand would be met in the region if OCX is not built as other airports would continue to serve Orange County needs despite potential inconveniences due to increased
delay and uncomfortable terminal conditions Therefore with project aviation alternatives regional travel patterns will change Specifically with a major airport in
Orange County people will travel shorter distances to get to an airport with the type of flights that they need The regional mobile vehicle emission forecast which follows
estimates the impact of the various alternatives on the regional level of vehicular emissions see Tables 32A and 32B The change in basinwide or regional emissions is
the critical indicator for change in regional air quality
The regional vehicular emissions for the Proposed Project Alternative B Alternative E No Project ETRPA Nonaviation Plan Alternative A Alternative F Alternative G
Alternative H and Alternative I were calculated for the year 2020 These emissions were calculated based on the regional travel demand forecast by the OCTAM 2.8 model
Parsons Transportation Group Inc 1999 The OCTAM 2.8 model provided regional vehicle assignment performance and regional transit bus system performance in terms
of total daily vehicle trips and daily vehicle miles traveled VMT In addition emissions for the Proposed Project Alternative B and Alternative E No Project in the phasing
years of 2005,2010 and 2015 were also calculated Daily vehicle trips and VMT were provided for the Proposed Project Alternative B under years 2005 and 2010 The 2015
VMT for Alternative B and 2005 2010 and 2015 VMT fur Alternative E No Project were interpolated extrapolated from the available data under Alternative B assuming a
similar rate of changes
Tables 30A and 30B show the regional vehicular trips related emissions in tons per day
and pounds per day for Existing Conditions 1998 Existing Conditions Plus the Proposed Project 2020 year 2005 to year 2020 Proposed Project Alternative B and

Alternative E No project and the year 2020 emissions for the ETRPA Nonaviation Plan Alternative A Alternative F Alternative G Alternative H and Alternative I

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Qua Technical Report 91
91 Page 92 93
Table 30A Regional Vehicular Traffic Tons Day Emissions
mx 375.0
Existing Conditions 1998 Plus 1,6X7 374.3 114.8 NA 72 Proposed Project 2020
2005 Alt E No Project 699.7 220.9 47.4 NA 4.2 2005 Proposed Project Alt B 698.5 220.7 47.3 NA 4.2
2010 Alt E No Project 1,486.5 281.0 56.1 NA 4.6 2010 Proposed Project Alt B 1,483.9 280.6 56.0 NA 4.6
2015 Alt E No Project 1,304 l 253.8 39.4 NA 4.8 20 15 Proposed Project Ah B 1,301 g 253.5 39.3 NA 4.7
2020 Alt E No Project 1,388 S 248.5 36.0 I NA 4.9 2020 Proposed Project Alt B 1,386 l 248.2 35.9 NA 4.9
L 2020 ETFWA Nonaviation Plan 1,388.4 248.7 36.0 NA 4.9

2020 Alt A 1,386.3 248.2 35.9 NA 4.9 1 2020 Alt F 1,388.0 248.4 35.9 NA 4.9

2020 Alt G 1,387.0 248.3 35.9 NA 4.9 2020 AltH 1,386 S 248.3 35.9 NA 4.9
2020 Alt I 1,386.4 248.3 35.9 NA 4.9
Source Parsons Transportation Group Inc and ISA Asswiates Inc 1999 NOTES 1 J Includes regional vehicle assignment performance and regional transit system performance

Z Not available No emission factor provided for SOX by EMFAC7G

Table 308 Regional Vehicular Traffic Emissions Pounds Day

Source Parsons Transportation Group Inc and LSA Associates Inc 1999 NOTES l Includes regional vehicle assignment performance and regional transit system performance
Z Not available No emission factor provided for SOX by EMFAC7G

County of Orange EIR No 573 88 Air Quality Technical Report 92
92 Page 93 94
Projected air pollutant emissions associated with regional vehicular traffic trips and the bus transit system show that emissions in the year 2020 would be the lowest under the
Proposed Project Alternative B followed by Alternative A then Alternative G Alternative F the No Project 2020 Alternative E scenario and the ETRPA
Nonaviation Plan except CO In year 2020 air pollutant emissions under the ETRPA Nonaviation Plan would be similar to those under Alternative E No Project and would
have higher CO NOx ROC and PM10 emissions than the Proposed Project Alternative B similar to other phasing years 2005,201O and 2015

Regional vehicular emissions under the Existing Conditions 1998 Plus Proposed Project 2020 scenario would be lower
pollutants Similarly regional Alternative B scenario would
Existing Conditions 1998

than under the Existing Conditions 1998 for all criieria vehicular emissions under the Proposed Project 2020
be lower in all criteria pollutants than those under the

6.2.8 Total Emissions Directly Emitted
The emissions generated by the various sources presented in the previous sections were summed for total emissions emitted from the project For comparison purposes these
emissions are presented for the year 2020 for the Proposed Project Alternative B and the No Project Alternative E scenarios as well as the Existing Conditions 1998 and
Existing Conditions 1998 Plus Proposed Project 2020 scenario Table 31 presents the emissions that are directly generated by these project alternatives That is these are the
emissions directly due to the build out and operation of the alternative and does not include the overall effect on regional emissions For example aircraft emissions are
presented for these project alternatives These aircraft emissions would occur at the MCAS El Toro site Alternative B and at JWA all alternatives However the data in
the table does not account for the fact that the aircraft emissions for these project aviation alternatives would occur elsewhere in the Basin irrespective of whether the project
aviation alternatives are implemented i e the data overlook studies conducted by SCAG which conclude that the regional air travel demand will be met whether a
commercial airport is constructed at MCAS El Toro or not and on that basis it is incorrect to assume that the Proposed Project will add substantial emissions attributable
to aircraft operations in the region Similarly for motor vehicle emissions the regional consequence is not accounted for In the table below the motor vehicle emissions
represent each motor vehicle that would travel to the project site It ignores the fact that these trips would occur anyway in the region for example from travel to an alternative
airport and does not take into account the increased drive time and VMT and resulting emissions

A summary of the emission projections contained in Table 31 is presented graphically in Figure 6 Alternative K generates the lowest amount of emissions without accounting for
emissions generated at an alternative airport site
Total air pollutant emissions in year 2020 vary with the project alternatives For CO the Proposed Project Alternative B would generate the highest amount followed by
ETRPA Nonaviation Plan then by Alternative J Alternative C Alternative A Alternative I Alternative H Alternative G Alternative F Alternative E and Alternative
K
County of Orange EIR No 573 8 4 Air Quality Technical Report 93
93 Page 94 95
Table 31 Total Project Emission Inventory pounds per day unless noted
P L Ah Sdstiu
mExisting Conditions 1998
JWA MCAS El Two

2005 Project Alternative Proposed B JWA
o c x
12005 Alternative E No Project JWA

MCAS El Toro
20 10 Proposed Project Alternative B JWA

o c x
2010 Alternative E No Project J WA

MCAS El Tore
20 15 Proposed Project Alternative B JWA

Estimated Ed mRate i day L
i
c o ROC S O x 3

33,727 6,169 2,499 107 895 27,933 5,283 1,659
91 881 5,794 886 790 16 14

50,135 12,658 4,478 220 2,116 18,755 4,083
1,305 7 7 641 3 1,380 8,575 3,173 143 1,475

26,853 5,837 1,821 103 964 26,853 5,83 7
1,821 103 964 0 0 0 -0 0

65,203 17,922 5,856 351 2,708 15,164 3,028 1,009 6 2 460
50,039 14,894 4,847 289 2,248
26,522 6,469 1,919 126 969 26,522 6,469
1,919 126 969 0 0 0 0 0

73,770 2 1,066 6,645 422 3,078 16,832 3,523 1,139
7 0 539 ocx 56,93 8 17,543 5,506 352 2,539

2015 Alternative E No Project 1 26,267 6,415 1,908 109 969
JWA 1 26,267 1 6,415 1 1,908 1 109 1 969 MCAS El Tore 0 0 0 0 0

2020 Alternative A 69,379 1 19,516 6,045 37s 2,917
JWA 19,998 4,488 1,382 89 685
o c x 49,38 1 15,028 4,663 286 2,232
2020 Proposed Project Alternative B 82,947 24,584 7,373 so1 3,476 JWA 18,675 4,054 1,271 81 618

ocx 64,272 20,530 6,102 420 2,858 2020 Alternative C
79,560 23,718 7,072 477 3,350 JWA 28,727 6,244
1,943 149 924 o c x 50,833 17,474 5,129 328 2,426

2020 Alternative E No Project 26,022 6,423 1,900 128 970 JWA 26,022 6,423 1,900 128
970 MCAS El Toro 0 0 0 0 0

2020 Alternative F 32,873 10,249 2,602 183 1,553 JWA
32,873 10,249 2,602 183 1,553 MCAS El Two 0 0 0 0 0

2020 Alternative G 50,363 17,000 3,772 344 2,128 JWA
50,363 17,000 3,772 344 2,128 MCAS El Tore 0 0 0
0 0 2020 Alternative H I s4p886 15,928
5,03 1 348 2,225 JWA 29,764 7,945 I 2,233 163 1,221

ocx 25,122 7,983 2,798 185 1,004 2020 Alternative I 5 8,865 16,450
4,943 349 2,295 JWA 23,604
5,53 1 1,636 117 801

County of Orange EIR No 573 8 5 Air Quality Technical Report 94
94 Page 95 96
Table 31 Total Project Emission Inventory bounds per day unless noted
2020 Alternative J 80,653 24,108 7,098 478 3,398 JWA 17,520 3,776 1,167 8 1 540
o c x 63,133 20,332 5,93 1 397 2,858
2020 Alternative K 17,520 3,776 1,167 8 1 540 JWA 17,520 3,776 1,167 8 1 540

MCAS El Toro 0 0 0 0 0
2020 ETRPA Nonaviation Plan 81,671 15,339 8,52 1 125 3,090 JWA 26,02 1 6,424 1,989 125 970

MCAS El Ton 55,650 8.915 6,623 0 2,120

Source CH2M Hill P D Consultants Parsons Transportation Group and LSA Associates Inc 1999

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 95
95 Page 96 97
co NOx ROC s o x PM10
q Alt A
q Alt B
q lAlt C
q lAlt E
n Alt F
HAlt G
MAIt H
mAIt I
mAlt J
mAlt K
0 ETRPA NonAviation Plan

I CotrntyofOrange Figure 6 SOURCE LSA Associates Inc
Year 2020 Emissions Projection Summary 96
96 Page 97 98
For NOx the Proposed Project Alternative B would generate the highest amount followed by Alternative J then by Alternative C Alternative A Alternative G Alternative I Alternative H
the ETRPA Nonaviation Plan Alternative F Alternative E and Alternative K
For ROC the ETRFA Nonaviation Plan would generate the highest amount followed by Alternative B Alternative J Alternative C Alternative A Alternative II Alternative I
Alternative G Alternative F Alternative E and Alternative K
For SOX Alternative B would generate the highest amount followed by Alternative J Alternative C Alternative A Alternative H Alternative I Alternative G Alternative F
Alternative E the ETRPA Nonaviation Plan and Alternative K
For PMlo Alternative B would generate the highest amount followed by Alternative J Alternative C the ETRPA Nonaviation Plan Alternative A Alternative I Alternative H
Alternative G Alternative F Alternative E and Alternative K
For all project aviation alternatives the aircraft emissions and the motor emissions are by far the major sources of emissions For the ETRPA Nonaviation Plan motor vehicle emissions
dominate the total emissions Total project direct emissions under the Proposed Project 2020 Alternative B would be higher in all criteria pollutants than those under the Existing Conditions
1998

6.2.9 Regional Emission Inventory
Consistent with the 1998 RTP demand for air travel is expected to increase in the f re regardless of whether improvements are undertaken at the airports in Orange County Therefore
from a regional perspective aircraft and muter vehicle emissions would occur in response to the growth in aviation demand in the region whether or not the project aviation alternatives are
implemented In the current market based and deregulated aviation environment in the United States the commercial airlines can generally be expected to provide sufficient flights to meet
that demand to any particular market so long as there is sufficient infrastructure capacity to absorb those operations

The aviation forecast conducted by P D Consultants Inc included a No Project 2020 Alternative forecast analysis to evaluate two issues 1 the ability of the existing regional airport
system in the South Coast Air Basin and the related market area to accommodate the projected level of demand in the absence of an expanded airport system in Orange County and 2 how
aviation demand in the region would distribute to other airports considering the level and allocation of demand and anticipated airport roles Other facilities in the Basin were constrained
where existing runway capacity or regulations imposed operations limits JWA was constrained for purposes of this analysis to a service level of 8.4 MAP

This analysis found that there is sufficient existing capacity at airports in the region to absorb the projected unconstrained existing and forecast regional demand without expansion of runway
capacity in orange county However this analysis also shows that the failure to provide sufficient airport capacity in Orange County to meet the locally generated demand will result in

County of Orange EIR No 573 8 8 Air Quality Technical Report 97
97 Page 98 99
greater average trip lengths and therefore increased vehicle miles traveled VMT by air
passengers and shippers

In addition accommodating fhre demand without the project at other Basin airports would
increase average delay times at those airports This would result in increased aircraft emissions due to longer taxi times and LTO cycle time As has already been shown taxi times are very

important relative to the amount of aircraft emissions and it is reasonable to expect that a new facility would be able to handle the aircraft in an efficient manner Therefore for the No Project
Alternative in all phasing years and other aviation alternatives that increase aviation operations at other regional airports it is anticipated that emissions at other airports would be higher per
operation than at OCX as a result of longer taxi and LTO cycle time
Table 32A shows the regional emissions inventory for the year 2020 Regional emissions include aircrafk GSE and on airport parking lots roads related emissions that would Occur in the
SCAG region Also included are the emissions associated with natural gas consumption for heating and cooling at regional airports based on the annual air travel passenger demands

The others category includes emissions that would occur at regional airports in the Basin other
than OCX and JWA with the project or the aviation alternatives Emissions associated with aircraft fuel facility and GSE at others airports were calculated with EDMS for the project

using the same fleet mix that was used for OCX default GSE and TIM values and LTO operations projected by P D Consultants October 1999 EDMS was also used for the aviation
alternatives but the fleet mix of aircraft operations reallocated from OCX JWA to other airports was used to calculate emissions not the average fleet mix for OCX In addition emissions were
calculated for GA parking and access and GSE which would be reallocated to other regional airports in each alternative but no additional congestion was assumed for these emissions
Emissions associated with heating and cooling i e natural gas consumption at others airports were calculated using blended emission factors from JWA and OCX and passenger numbers
projected by P D consultants October 1999 Because JWA and the proposed OCX is considered to have an efficient airport heating and cooling system emissions calculated for
others airport sites may be lower than would in fact occur Emissions associated with airport fueling systems
at others airports were calculated with blended JWNOCX emissions factors and the projected regional LTO operations Emissions associated with motor vehicles were

calculated using EMFAC7G emission factors for the Basin and regional VMTs generated by the
OCTAM 2.8 trafEic model Parsons Transportation Group October 1999

The analysis shows from this regional perspective that year 2020 airport related emissions would be lower in the SCAG region with the proposed airport facilities at the MCAS El Toro site
compared to the year 2020 No Project scenario Essentially then the Proposed Project is selfmitigating

However Table 32B shows that emission levels under the Existing Conditions 1998 Plus Proposed Project 2020 scenario would be higher than those under the Existing Conditions

County of Orange EIRNo 5'73 Air Quality Technical Report 98
98 Page 99 100
Table 32A Regionwide Emissions Inventory 2020 Proposed Project No Project Pounds Day Unless Noted
2020 Proposed Project Alternative B

Source LSA Associates Inc 1999
JWA Other Airports
I

GSE
Regional El Tore 191,566 93,220 18,786 405 m

JWA 1 5,832 1 6641 1861 27
Nat Gas
Regional El Tore 5,832 664 186 27

JWA Others I 3 I

Fuel
Regional
El Toro 673 3,873 3 6 132 I 0 JWA 1 m

I I 81

Roads Regional
m 8
El Toro L I JWA

Others I 7 49 1 lg308 1 8 70,589 Regional 2,776,95 I 496,97 1 71,897 9,829
TOTAL pounds day 2,975,022 594,728 90,913 10,393

I Emission sources included in the Other Airports category include aircraft GSE and road parking lots at other airports in the region
County of Orange EIR NO 573 80 Air Quality Technical Report 99
99 Page 100 101
Table 32B Regionwide Emissions Inventory Existing Condition
Existing
Cunditions 1998 JWA

Other Airports
Regional
GSE El Toro
JWA Regional

Nat Gas El Tom JWA
Others Regional
Fuel El Toro JWA

Roads
Regional
El Toro
JWA Others

Regional
TOTAL pounds day

Source LSA Associates Inc 1999

10,300 1,567
103,183 4 1,349 115,134 43,170

1,213 3 5
5,768 482 6,98 1 517

1 3 1 3 7 6
157 904 1 7 1 983

I c
2,929 594
11,852 3,158 3,296,330 746,234

3,3 11,111 749,986
3,433,397 794,656

283
3,960 135 4,743 135

113 3
166 1 9 279 22

1 0 3 0
1 1 33
1 I 8

9
176 1 1 1,201
860 228,682 13,549

230,059 14,420
235,101 14,610

Plus Project Pounds Day Unless N
Exis g Chnditions 13998 Plus 1

El Torb
1 co Aircraft 7,100

JWA
Other Airports Regional
6,197
103,183 116,480

GSE

Nat Gas
El Toro
JWA Regional

El Toro JWA
Others Regional

15,500
4,293 19,793

109 2 0
157 286
Fuel El Toro JWA
Regional
Roads El Toro
IWA Others

Regional
TOTAL pounds day

41,56
8,165 3,253,615

3,303,343
3,439,902
6,505

1,187
SCAQMD Threshold for
I Operation pounds day

Ited
reposed N Ox

7,955 1,246
41,349
50,550
1,661
51s 2,176

625 117
904 1,646

10,289
2,176 736,145

748,610
800,982
6,326

1,154

1 Emission sources included in the Other Airports category include aircraft GSE and road parking lots at other airports in the region
2 Numbers in bold represent change from Existing Conditions exceed SCAQMD operational thresholds

298 3,960 13
5,492 135
470 6 1
140 21 610 8 2

6 21 1 4
1 0 3 0 1 7 55
78 5
83
4,3 14 2,776
827 593 224,435 11,022

229,576 14,39 1
235,778 14,663 J
677 53

124 1 0
5 5 150

County of Orange EIR No 573 ai Air Quality Technical Report 100
100 Page 101 102
1998 scenario for all four criteria pollutants Emissions at others airport for the existing conditions were calculated with EDMS using representative aircraft types as surrogates P D
Consultants October 1999 and LTO operations projected by P D Consultants October 1999 Emission increases of CO NOx and ROC would exceed the operational threshold established by
the SCAQMD in year 1998 Therefore there would be a significant regional air quality impact measured by a comparison of the Existing Conditions 1998 Plus Proposed Project 2020 to
Existing Conditions 1998 This conclusion must be qualified by the fact that this comparison does not take into account a number of significant factors relevant to the assessment of air
quality impacts that may reduce emissions levels in f'uture years including conclusions made by SCAQMD in its 1994 and 1997 AQMPs that pollutant sources creating the existing emissions
will become steadily cleaner over the years that motor vehicles operating in 20 years will be substantially cleaner than today's vehicles and that industrial sources will continue to be
regulated and continue to become cleaner as less polluting technologies continue to become I available that replace today's technology Additionally this approach overlooks recent
conclusions by SCAG that adequate airfield itiastructure exists in the Basin to accommodate forecast flights in future years including the 2005 2010 and 20 I5 phasing years analyzed for
this project Nevertheless this analysis has been provided consistent with CEQA
Tables 32C 32D and 32E show the regional emissions inventory for the Proposed Project and
the No Project conditions in years 2005 2010 and 2020 respectively In all future phasing years starting from year 2005 regional emissions under the Proposed Project would be less than

those under the No Project conditions
In effect mitigating regulations programs and foreseeable technology improvements which are in phases and will be implemented by agencies other than the County over the next 10 to 20
years will have the effect of reducing fiture pollutant levels in the Basin with or without the project

Nevertheless the 2020 Proposed Project Plus Existing Conditions 1998 when compared to Existing Conditions 1998 will result in significant regional air quality impacts
Tables 32F 326,32H 321 and 325 show the regional emissions inventory for Alternative A Alternative F Alternative G Alternative H and Alternative I respectively in year 2020 Except
for Alternative F regional emissions under Alternative A Alternative G Alternative H and Alternative I would all be less than those under the No Project scenario Alternative F would
result in regional emissions of CO and ROC higher than those of the No Project Alternative
Differences in total regional emissions from aircraft operations between the various alternatives are generally related to the number of aircrti operations served at El Toro and J n Wayne
versus other airports in the region with alternatives accommodating more aircraft operations in Orange County showing lower total regional emissions This is due to increased efficiency in
aircraft movements within the region with the additional capacity provided at OCX and JWA resulting in lower overall emissions per operation

County of Orange EIR No 573 92 Air Quality Technical Report 101
101 Page 102 103
Regic
2005 Pr4

Aircraft El Toro
JWA Other Airports

Regional
GSE El Toro JWA

Regional
Nat Gas

Fuel
El Toro JWA
Others Regional
El Toro
JWA Regional

Roads El Toro JWA
Others Regional

TOTAL pounds day
Change from No Project pounds day

SCAQMD Threshold for Operation
pounds day

nwide Emissions Invr ntory 2005 1
posed Project Altern

5,872 566 4,046 501
9,918 1,067
36 207 15 85

403 2,318 454 2,610
m

22,79 5,389 8 SO 1 2,265
1,365,700 433,716 1,396,996 441,370

1,553,783 515,804

Source LSA Associates Inc 1999

dive B ROC
565 303
13,518
14,386
173 135

308

1 3
5 1 8

2,420 861
91,312 94,593
109,330

Table 32C reposed Project No Project Pounds Day Unless Noted
296
296
21 21

42
7
3 79

I 8 9

1,44 617
6,3 80 8,444

8,871

JWA
JWA

Regional Nat Gas El TOIO
JW 4

Other

Others
Airpork

Regional Fuel El Toxo
JWA Regional
Roads

Regional
El Tom JWA
Others Regional
TOTAL pounds day

GSE El Toro I 5,460
8,458 1,702

576
336
169 23
1

5,460 576
143,578
169
69,836
2 3 0 0
14,555

0
3lI
0
152,036

20
71,538
117
14,891
1
318
4 425 2,446
0

23
0
8 4 445
0

2,563
C
24 8 8
I 7
I 7
0 0 0 0 12,915 3,442 1,308 937

1,386,436 438,423 93,40 1 7,519 1,399,35 1 441,865 94,709 8,456
1,557,292 516,542 109,800 8,885

Emission sources included in the Other Airports category include aircraft GSE and roads parking lots at other airports in the region
County of Orange EIR No 573 83 Air Quality Technical Report 102
102 Page 103 104
Table 32D
Regionwide Emissions Inventory 2010 Proposed Project No Project Pounds Day Unless Noted

Fuel
Roads

JWA Others
Regional El Toro
JWA Regional
El Toro JWA

85 2,522
3,015
I
8,13 1,609

1 2 4
2 9 4 3
4 47
3,480 612

3 8 6
103
I
2,19 438

JWA 20 117 1 4 Others 492 2,832 26 9 7
Regional 512 2,949 27 101 Fuel El Toro I w
JWA I 8 Regional m 8
Roads El Toro 0 0 0 0 JWA 12,915 3,442 1,308 937

Source LSA Associates Inc 1999
Emission sources included in the Other Airports category include aircraft GSE and roads parking lots at other airports in the region
County of Orange EIR No 573 94 Air Quality Technical Report 103
103 Page 104 105
Table 32E Regionwide Emissions Inventory 2015 Proposed Project No Project Pounds Day Unless Noted
Aircraft El Toro JWA
Other Airports Regional
GSE El Toro JWA
Regional Nat Gas

Fuel
Roads

El Toro JWA
Others Regional
El Toro JWA
Regional El Toro
JWA Others
Regional TOTAL pounds day

Change from No Project pounds day

SCAQMD Threshold for Operation pounds day

Source LSA Associates Inc 1999

i No Prujea co I j
0

7,334 170,477
177,811 0
5,998 5,998
0
20 563

583 0

12,915

2,175 400 83,507 17,234 378
85,682 17,634 378 0 0 0
681 191 2 8 681 191 2 8
0 0 0 117 1 4
3,240 30 111 3,357 31 115
0 0 0

Emission sources included in the Other Airports category include aircraft GSE and roads parking lots at other airports in the region
County of Orange EIR No 573 95 Air Quality Technical Report 104
104 Page 105 106
Table 32F Regionwide Emissions Inventory Alternative A 2020
Pounds Day Unless Noted

Aircraft El Tom 4 ss 1 5,322 JWA 6,287 1,389
Other Airports 166,301 81,951 Regional
177,139 88,662 GSE

Nat Gas
Fuel

El Toro JWA
Regional El Toru
J WA Others
Regional El Toro
JWA
Regional

11,940 4,628
16,568 7 2
23 579
674
e

Roads El Tore 32,818 J WA 9,060
Others 2,730,639 Regional 2,772,5 17
TOTAL pounds day 2,966,898
Change from 2020 No -8,124 Project pounds day

SCAQMD Threshold for Operation
pounds day
550

Source LSA Associates Inc 1999

1,235 555
1,790 412
130 3,33 1
3,873

8,059 2,414
485,975 496,448

590,773
-3,955

5 5

ROC 823
306 16,503
17,632
359 151

510 4
1 31
3 6 52
6 58
3,425 918
67,49 1 71,834
90,034
-879

340 340
4 5 2 3
6 8 14
4 114
132

2,17 658
6,984 9,815
10 55
-38

Emission sources included in the Other Airports categov include aircraft GSE and roads parking lots at other airports in the region
County of Orange EIR No 573 9 6 Air Quality Technical Report 105
105 Page 106 107
Table 32G Regionwide Emissions Inventory Alternative F 2020
Pounds Day Unless Noted

CO RUC Aircraft El Tom
0 0 0 JWA 1,944 3,625 194

Other Airports 190,181 88,3 89 18,708 400 Regional 192,125
92,0 14 18,902 400 GSE El Tom 0 0
0 0 JWA 9,956 751 272 2 7

Regional 9,956 751 272 27
Nat Gas El Toro 0 0 0 0 JWA 53 304
3 10 Others 620 3,568 33 122

Regional 673 3,872 3 6 132 Fuel El Toro 0 0
0 0 JWA 13 Regional

13 Roads El Toro 0
0 0 0 JWA 20,920 5,569 2,120 1,516

Others 2,755,707 491,238 69,753 8,311 Regional 2,775,997 496,807 71,873 9,827
TOTAL pounds day 2,978,751 593,444 91,096 10386
Change Tom 2020 No 3,729 -1,284 183 -7 Project pounds day

SCAQMD Threshold for Operation
pounds day
550 5 5 5 5 150

Source LSA Associates Inc 1999

1 Emission sources included in the Other Airports category hclude aircraft GSE and roads parking lots at
other airports in the region 2 Numbers in bold represent change from 2020 No Project level exceeds SCAQMD operational thresholds

County of Orange EIR No 573 I7 Air Quality Technical Report 106
106 Page 107 108
Table 32H Regionwide Emissions Inventory Alternative G 2020
Pounds Day Unless Noted
lltmativ4

0 7,488
81,008 88,496
0 3,863
178,641 182,504
0
350 18,159

18,509

Aircraft El Tore JWA
Other Airports Regional
GSE El Toro JWA
Regional
0 17,774
17,774
0 1,401
1,401
0 5 0
5 0 Nat Gas El Tore 0 0
JWA 9 4 542 Others
579 3,33 I Regional 673 3,873

0
5
31 3 6

0 19
114 133
0 I
I
0
I
Fuel El Toro JWA

Regional Roads El Tore
JWA Others
Regional
TOTAL pounds day
Change from 2020 No Project pounds day

0 2 4
2 4
0 2,059

7,76 1 9,820
10,381

0
28,632 2,745,343

2,773,975
2,974,926
-96

0
7,569 489,026

496,595
590,365
-4,363

SCAQMD Threshold 550 55

0 2,903
68,947 71,850
90,909

for Openition pounds day
Source LSA Associates Inc 1999

1 Emission sources included in the Other Airports category include aircraft GSE and roads parking lots at
other airports in the region

County of Orange EIR No 573 B8 Air Quality Technical Report 107
107 Page 108 109
Table 321 Regionwide Emissions Inventory Alternative H 2020
Pounds Day Unless Noted

Aircraft El Toro IJP o 4,086 3,343 1,050 JWA 5,176 2,652 332
Other Airports 171,134 83,436 16,066 36 Regional 180,396 89,43 1 17,448 367
GSE El Tore 6,566 850 218 33 JWA 8,217 704 235 27
Regional 14,783 1,554 453 60 Nat Gas El Toro 38 217 27
JWA 41 234 28 others 595 3,422 32 117
Regional 674 3,873 36 132 Fuel El Toro w w 30 m
JWA 10 Regional 40
Roads El Toro 14,43 3,57 1,498 964 JWA
16,330 4,352 1,654 1,186 Others 2,742,845 488,711 68,709 7,669

Regional 2,773,607 496,636 71,861 9,819 TOTAL pounds day 2,969,460 591,494 89,838
10,378 Change from 2020 No -5,562 -3,234 -1,075 -15

Project pounds day
SCAQMD Threshold 550 55 55 150 for Operation

pounds day

Source LSA Asswiates Inc 1999

1 Emission scwces included in the Other Airports category include aircraft GSE and roads parking luts at
other airports in the region

County of Orange EIR No 573 9 9 Air Quality Technical Report 108
108 Page 109 110
Table 325 Regionwide Emissions Inventory Alternative I 2020
Pounds Day Unless Noted
Year 2 2 h3 w tiati I pma

Aircraft El Tore 3,83 1 4,23 7 723 JWA 6,775 1,876 361
Other Airports 167,408 83,107 16,628 362 Regional 178,014 89,220 17,712 362
GSE El Tore 9,726 998 293 37 JWA 6,219 682 195 27
Regional 15,945 1,680 488 64 Nat Gas El Toru 57 325 3 11
JWA 26 152 1 5 others 590 3,396 32 116
Regional 673 3,873 36 132 Fuel El Tom 41 JWA
7 Regional
Roads El Toru 21,64 5,359 48 2,247 1,446 JWA 10,584 2,82 1 1,072 769
Others 2,740,559 488,3 15 68,522 7,60 1 Regional 2,772,790 496,495 71,841 9,816
TOTAL pounds day 2,967,422 591,268 90,125 10274
Change from 2020 No -7,600 -3,460 -788 -19 Project pounds day

SCAQMD Threshold for Operation
pounds day

Source LSA Associates Inc 1999

1 Emission sources included in the Wther Airports category include aircraft GSE and roads parking lots at
other airports in the region

County of Orange EIR No 573 1QO Air Quality Technical Report 109
109 Page 110 111
These relative rankings are however also influenced by the type of operation that is not accommodated at Orange County airports Fdr example piston engine operations generate
proportionately more CO and HC emissions than turbine engines Therefore alternatives that move more general aviation operations which have a large share of piston engine aircraft to
other regional airports impact the CO and HC categories more than alternatives that move fewer GA operations even though these other alternatives may move more total commercial and
general aviation operations to other regional airports

6 2 .1 0 A i r Toxics
As discussed previously this air quality impact analysis focuses on the non toxic air pollutant emissions and their impacts A health risk assessment HIM has been conducted for diesel
emissions associated with aircraft airport GSE and trucks A copy of the HRA report is included in Appendix F G A summary of this assessment has been provided in Section 4.5 of
the EIRNo 573

6.2.11 Odor
There has been no reliable data collected that show aircraft exhaust emission would have measurable odor impacts on airport environs Therefore this air quality analysis did not attempt
to conduct a scientific estimate for odor impacts from aircraft emissions Similarly truck movements within the airports will be widely dispersed therefore trucks would be individual
point sources and would not result in a large source dispensing odor hemispherically Thus there is no adequate way to model the odor impacts from individual trucks moving around the
sites However due to the distance between the airport and the nearest residential uses it is not anticipated odor generated at the airports by individual trucks would result in levels higher than
odor generated by trucks on the streets adjacent to these residences No significant odor impacts
are anticipated from the Proposed Project

6.3 LOCAL AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Local air quality impacts generally occur close to a concentrated source of pollutants This is in contrast to regional air quality impacts which often occur many miles from the source and occur
over a very large area The most common local air quality concern is roadways High pollutant
concentrations can result adjacent to intersections with high volume of traffic and or severe congestion In regards to airports the most critical areas are near the end of runways and airport

access parking lot system Areas near the end of runways are not only subject to takeoff and landing emissions but also emissions from queuing waiting to takeoff and much of the
emissions released during taxiing Terminal access and parking lots can also be exposed to high levels of air pollutants from concentrated traffic

Local air quality impacts are usually assessed through the use of dispersion models These are complex models which predict the concentration of pollutants near the pollutant source
To determine if an impact is significant the resulting concentration is compared to the State and

federal ambient air quality standards If the project results in an exceedance of the ambient air

County of Orange EIR No 573 101 Air Quality Technical Report 110
110 Page 111 112
quality standard that would not occur without the project it is considered to be a significant impact If an exceedance of the ambient air quality standards will result with or without the
project but the project will cause an increase in the exceedance then an increase in the concentrations of 10 or greater is usually considered to be a significant impact

In the following sections the impacts on local air quality are assessed for representative roadway intersections and for those areas near the end of the proposed airport runways

6.3.1 Local Air Quality Impacts Due to Motor Vehicles
Because the project will introduce changes in traffic levels and or movement circulation upon the roadways serving the project a detailed analysis of carbon monoxide concentrations at sensitive
areas in the project vicinity was conducted Carbon monoxide CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways since the most notable source of carbon monoxide is motor vehicles
For this reason carbon monoxide concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of its impacts on local air quality
Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future carbon monoxide levels with State and federal CO standards and also by comparing future CO concentrations with and without the
project
Future CO concentrations with and without the project were forecast with the CAL3QHC computer model The selection of meteorological conditions used in this model is discussed in
the existing setting section for local air quality Trtic data provided by the County's traffic consultant Austin Foust Associates Inc October 1999 were used in this analysis

Generally the one hour CO level is considered the peak maximum CO level since it is the highest CO measured for an hour According to the Caltrans Air Quality Technical Analysis
Notes changes in meteorology and traffic over time disperse the CO concentration levels and cause it to be less severe Therefore it is highly unlikely that the one hour CO levels would
persist for a full eight hours As a result a one hour CO level is considered generally the peak level and is higher than the eight hour CO level A persistence factor of 0.7 was used to convert
from a peak one hour concentration to a peak eight hour concentration The 0.7 factor is a reasonably conservative persistence factor based on studies of monitoring data throughout many
regions of the country U S EPA 1992 and is recommended by the SCAQMD for nonattainment areas

Similar to the existing conditions CAL3QHC was used to model 20 representative intersections for each project scenario in the vicinity of the project sites The top ten intersections with the
worst level of service LOS and the top ten intersections with the highest traffic volumes were modeled If there was an overlap between the above twu selection criteria other intersections
were included to reach 20 intersections
Because no Wure ambient CO concentrations are available beyond year 2000 it is assumed that background CO levels used in the existing conditions are the same as all future years This can
be considered as the worst case situation since the background CO levels are projected to
decrease steadily between now and the future years This is due in part to the fact that motor

County of Orange EIR No 573 182 Air Quality Technical Report 111
111 Page 112 113
vehicles are becoming steadily cleaner and that industrial sources will continue to be regulated in a manner that reduces emissions Similar to the existing conditions the second highest one
hour CO ambient concentration monitored at the nearest air monitoring station Tom 1993 to 1997 was added to the calculated one hour CO project concentration to get the overall one hour
CO level at the modeled receptor sites and the second highest eight hour CO ambient concentration monitored at the nearest air monitoring station from 1993 to 1997 was added to the
calculated eight hour CO project concentration to get the overall eight hour CO level at the
modeled receptor sites

It should be noted that due to the various locations of each intersection modeled ambient CO
concentrations monitored at the Central Orange County air monitoring station 12 ppm for the one hour period and 8 ppm for the eight hour period which is the air quality monitoring station

closest to Orange Santa Ana and Tustin were added to the project CO concentrations at intersections in the cities of Orange Santa Ana and Tustin Similarly ambient CO
concentrations monitored at the Saddleback Valley air monitoring station 7 ppm for the onehour period and 4.1 ppm for the eight hour period were added to the project CO concentrations
at intersections in the cities of Irvine Laguna Beach Laguna Hills Lake Forest Mission Viejo and San Juan Capistrano because it is the air quality monitoring station closest to these cities

The future years peak hour traffic and volume capacity ratio data were taken from the traffic study prepared by Austin Foust Associates Inc October 1999 for the MCAS El Toro Master
Development Program Airport System Master Plan ASMP The p m peak hour traffic data was utilized for the CAL3QHC computer modeling as the worst case scenario since generally
the p m peak hour traffic is higher than the a m peak hour traffic
The CAL3QHC computer modeling results for the future years conditions are shown below in Tables 33 through 62 The carbon monoxide levels are the composites of the background levels
of carbon monoxide coming into the area plus those generated by the local roadways Tables 33 and 34 show the one hour and eight hour CO concentrations for the Existing Conditions 1998
Plus Proposed Project Alternative B conditions CO concentrations for this scenario were included mainly for comparison with those of the Existing Conditions 1998 scenario due to the
unlikely scenario that this condition would occur Because of the selection criteria not all intersections modeled for the Existing Conditions 1998 scenario were modeled for the Existing
Plus Proposed Project Alternative B scenario However for those intersections that were modeled under both scenarios the change would be 0.3 ppm or smaller for both the one hour and
the eight hour CO concentrations None of the changes in CO concentrations would exceed the thresholds of significant changes 1.0 ppm for the one hour CO concentration and 0.45 ppm for
the eight hour CO concentrations The eight hour CO concentration at MacArthur Boulevard and Main Street would continue to exceed the 9.0 ppm standard with no measurable increase
resulting from the Proposed Project The eight hour CO concentration at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Irvine Boulevard would increase fiom 8.8 ppm to 9.1 ppm This projected
increase of 0.3 ppm would be less than the 0.45 ppm significance threshold

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 112
112 Page 113 114
I
Table 33 Year 1998 Alternative B Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration For Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS

INT INTERSECTING STREETS RECI mC2 C3 mC4 WCS FtEC6 REC7 MC MC9 R EC1 t WCll wC12

154 MacArthur Main 13.2 13.4 13.2 13.6 13 I 13.0 12.9 13.4 12.8 1 3 .1 12.8 12.9
90 Grand Edinger 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.4 12.9 13.2 12.7 13.2 12.7 12.9 13.0 13.0

96 Jamboree gt Edinger 133 13.2 13.4 13.1 12.7 13.0 12.6 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.9 13.1
9 4 Red Hill Edingct 13.4 13.3 13.2 13.1 12.7 13.0 12.8 13.1 12.7 12.8 13.1 13.1
2 3 Red Hill Irvine 12.8 13.1 13.0 13.0 12.9 13.0 12.6 12.7 12.5 12.6 12.6 12.7
14 Newport Old Iwinc 12.5 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.5 12.6 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.3 12.2
7 2 Red Hill Walnut 12.9 13.0 13.1 12.9 12.6 12.6 12.8 12.8 12.5 12.7 12.6 12.6
2 6 Jamboree Irvine 13.1 13.0 13.0 13.5 12.7 12.6 12.6 12.9 12.6 12.7 12.6 12.8

17s Jamboree Michelson 8.6 a 4 8.4 8.2 7.9 8.2 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.2 8.0 a 2
156 Jamboree Main 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.0 a 2 7.9 7.9 7.9 8.1 7.9 8.3

2 6 8 Bake Rockfield a 1 8.1 8.2 a 2 7.9 8 .1 7.9 7.9 7.8 8.2 7.7 7.8 2 6 0 Bake Muirlands 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.0 7.9 3.2 7.7 7.6 7.9 8.0 7.8 a 1

151 Red Hill MacArthur 8.5 8.1 8.1 a 3 7.8 7.9 7.8 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.9 8.0
2 3 8 Bake Irvinatabuco 8.3 8.5 a 4 8 .1 7.7 8.3 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.9 8.2 a 4
6 8 Sand Canyon Ttabuco 8.3 8.0 8.4 a 2 8.0 7.9 7.7 8.2 7.6 8.0 7.6 7.7
3 2 Sand Canyon Irvine 8.2 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.8 8.0 7.6 8.0 7.6 7.5 7.7 7.7
139 Jeffrey Alton 8.3 8.2 8.3 8.1 7.8 8.2 7.8 7.9 7.9 8 .1 7.8 7.9
195 MacArthur Jamboree 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.1 7.7 8.1 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.1 7.7 8.0

2 o El Tore Avd Carlota 8.4
2 6 9 Lake Forest Rockfield 8.5
2 6 5 Alicia Muirlands 8.4

CITY OF SANTA ANA
CITY OF TUSTIN

CIW OF IRVINE's

CITY OF L AGUNA HILIsis
WI Y OF LAKE FORESTIS
CITY OF MISSION VIEJO

7.9
8.5
8.3

8.2 8.1 7.6 7.9 7.6 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.9
8.5 8.3
8.2
7.9 8.2 7.8
7.7
7.9 7.8 8.1 8.0 8.2
a 4 7.8 8.0 8.0 7.8 8.0 7.9 8.1
Note Concentrations are in parts per million ppm federal 1 hour CO standard is 35 ppm State I hour CO standard is 20 ppm I RECI SW CORNER
2 REC2 SE CORNER
3 REC3 NE CORNER
4 REc4 NW CORNER
5 RECS S DEPARTURE MID BLOCK 6 REC6 N APPROACH MID BLOCK

7 REC7 E DEPARTURE MID BLOCK 8 REC8 W APPROACH MID BLOCK
9 REC9 N DEPARTURE MID BLOCK IO RECIO S APPROACH MID BLOCK
I I RECl 1 W DEPARTURE MID BLOCK 12 RECl2 E APPROACH MID BLOCK
13 The ambient one bur CO concentration 12.0 ppm the second highest one hour CO concenlration at the neatest air monitoring station Central Orange County Air Monitoring
Station between the years 1993 to 1997 is added to the calculated one hour levels 14 This intersection was analyzed for comparison with the Year 199 No Project scenario only

It is not among the interseclions with the IO highest traffic volumw or 10 worst levels of service IS The ambient one hour CO Ooncentralion 7.0 ppm the second highest one hour CO concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Saddleback Valley Air Monitoring
Station between the vears 1993 to 1997 is added to the calculated one hour levels

113
113 Page 114 115
Table 34 Year 1998 Alternative B Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration For Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Sedce LOS
INT INTERSECTING STREETS RECl mC2 MC3 REC4 REC5 REC6 REC7 RECS REC9 REClO RECll REC12

154 MacArthur Main 8 .8 9.0 8.8 9.1 8 .8 8.7 8.6 9.0 8.6 8.8 8.6 8.6
40 Grand Edinger 8.8 8.9 9.0 9 .0 8.6 8.8 8.5 8.8 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.7

CITY OF TUSTIN
96 Jamboree Edinger 8.9 8.8 9.0 8.8 8.5 8.7 a 4 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.8
94 Red Hill Edinger 9.0 a 9 8.8 8.8 8.5 a 7 8.6 8.8 8.5 8.6 8.8 8.8
2 3 Red Hill Irvine 8.6 a 8 8.7 a 7 8.6 a 7 8.4 8.5 a 4 a 4 a 4 8.5
14 Newport Old Irvine 8.4 a 5 8.6 8.6 a 4 8.4 8.4 8.4 a 4 a 4 8.2 8.1
7 2 Red Hill Walnut 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.6 a 4 8.4 8.6 8.6 a 4 8.5 a 4 8.4
2 6 Jamboree Irvine 8.8 8.7 8.7 9.1 8.5 a 4 8.4 8.6 8.4 8.5 a 4 8.6

CITY OF IRVINE
175 Jamboree Michelson
IS6 Jamboree Main
268 Bake Rockfield
2 6 0 Bake Muirlands
151 Red Hill MacArthur
238 Bake Irvine Tmbuco
68 Sand Canyon TrabuGo
32 Sand Canyon Irvine
1 3 9 Jeffrey Alton
1 9 5 MacArthur Jamboree

2 8 0
2 6 9
265

CITY OF MGUNA HlLLS'S
El Toro Avd Carlota
CITY OF LAKE FORESTIS
Lake Forest Rockfield

CITY OF MISSION VIEJO
Alicia Muirlands

5.2
5.1
4.9
5.0
5.2
5.0
5.0
4.9
5.0
4.9

5.1
5.2
5.1

5.1 5.1 4.9 4.7
5.1 5.1 4.9 4.8
4.9 4.9 4.9 4.7
4.9 4.9 4.8 4.7
4.9 4.9 5.0 4.7
5.2 5.1 4.9 4.6
4.8 5.1 4.9 4.8
4.8 4.8 4.8 4.7
4 .9 5.0 4.9 4.7
4 .9 4.9 4.9 4.6

4.8
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.7
4.6

4.9 4.8 4.9
4.9 4.7 5 o
4.9 4.6 4.7
4.8 4.7 4.9
4,8 4.7 4.8
4.7 4.9 5.1
4.8 4 5 4 .6
4.5 4.6 4 .6
4.9 4.7 4 .7
4.9 4.6 4 .8

4 .7
5 .2

5 .0

4.9
5.2
5.1

4.9
5.0
4.9

4.5
4.7
4.7

4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.7
5.0
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.9

4.7
4.9
4.8

4.5
4.7
4.6

4.8
4.7
4.7
4.5
4.8
4.7
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.7

4.7
4.7
4.8

4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.7
4.5
4.5
4.7
4.7

4.7
4.7
4.7

4.7
4.9

4.8

4.7
4.8
4.7

4 .7
4 .9
4 .9
Note l Concentrations are in parts per million ppm federal and State 8 hour CO standard is 9 ppm
1 RECI SWCORNER
2 REC2 SE CORNER
3 REC3 NE CORNER

4 REC4 NW CORNER
5 RECS S DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
6 REC6 N APPROACH MLD BLOCK
7 REC7 E DEPARTURE Ma BLOCK
8 RECS W APPROACH MID BLOCK
9 REC9 N DEPARTURE MlD BLOCK

10 RECIO S APPROACH MID BLOCK
1 I RECl 1 W DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
12 REC I2 E APPROACH MID BLOCK

CITY OF SANTA ANA

13 The ambient eight hour CO concentration 80 ppm the second highest eight hour concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Central Orange County Air Monitoring
Station between the years of 1993 and 1997 is added to the product of the calculated one hour levels multiplied by a persistent factor of 0.7
I4 This intersection was analyzed for comparison with the Year 1998 No Project scenario only
It is not among the intersections with the 10 highest traffic volumes or 10 worst levels of service
15 The ambient eight hour CO ancentration 4.1 ppm the second highest one hour CO concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Saddleback Valley Air Monitoring
Station between the years 1993 to 1997 is added to the calculated one hour Ievcls 114
114 Page 115 116
Table 35 Year 1998 Existing Conditions Plus ETFWA Non Aviation Plan Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration For Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS
INT INTERSECTING STREETS RECl RECZ2 REC3 REC4 RECS RE REC7 RECS REdB9 REClO RECl 1 REC12'2

26 Jamboree Irvine 13.1 1 3 .0 1 3 .0 13.5 1 2 .8 1 2 .7 12.6 1 2 .9 12.6 1 2 .7 1 2 .6 12.7
CITY OF IRVINE
238 Bake IwincrCrabuco 8 .6 9.0 8 .4 8 .4 8.0 8.6 8.0 7.9 8 .1 8,2 8 .2 8 .4
268 Bake Rockfield 8 .2 8 .2 8 .4 8 .3 8.0 8 .1 8.1 8.1 8.0 8 .3 7 .8 8.1
1 7 s Jamboree Michelson 8 .6 8.4 8 .5 8 .2 7.9 8 .2 7.9 8.0 8.0 8.2 8.0 8 .3
156 Jamboree Main 8 .4 8.4 8 .4 8.2 8.0 8.1 7 .9 7.9 7.9 8 .1 7 .9 8 .3
237 Alton Irvine 8 .3 8.7 8 .2 8 .1 7.9 8 .1 8 .1 8 .3 7.7 7.7 8 .0 8 .2
68 Sand Canyon Trabuco 8 .3 8.0 8 .6 8 .5 8 .1 7.9 7 .8 8 .3 7.7 8 .1 7.7 7.8
320 Trabuco Irvine 8.1 8.1 8 .2 7.9 7.8 7.7 7 .8 8 .1 7.7 7 .5 7 .7 7.9
338 Millennium Alton 8 .3 8 .3 8 .2 8 .3 8.0 8 .1 7.9 8.2 7.9 8.2 7.9 8.0
151 Red Hill MacArthur 8 .3 8.1 8.0 8 .3 7.8 7.9 7 .8 8.0 7.9 7.9 7 .9 8.0
319 E Central Park Irvine 7 .8 8 .3 7.9 7 .8 7.6 7.9 7 .7 7.7 7.4 7 .3 7.6 7.7
1 3 0 Technology Barranca 8 .0 7.9 7.9 8 .2 7 .5 7 .3 7 .6 7.7 7.6 7 .7 7 .6 7 .7
317 W Central Park Irvine 8.0 8 .1 7.9 8 .3 7.9 8.0 7.6 7.9 7.7 8.0 7.6 7.7
316 Research Irvine 8.1 8 .2 8 .0 8 .2 7.7 7.7 7.6 7 .8 7.8 7.9 7 .6 7 .7
318 Millennium Irvine 7 .9 8 .2 7.9 8.0 7 .7 7.7 7 .7 7.8 7.4 7.4 7 .8 7.9
337 Millennium Barranca 8 .5 8.0 8 .1 8 .3 7.9 7 .8 7 .9 8.0 8 .1 8 .2 7.9 8 .2
3 2 Sand Canyon Irvine 8 .3 8.2 8 .2 8 .1 8 .1 8 .3 7 .8 8 .1 7.6 7.6 7.9 7 .8

280
CITY OF LACUNA HILLS
El Toro Avd Carlota 8 .4 7.9 8.2 8 .1 7.6 7.9 7 .5 7.7 7.8 7.9 7 .8 7.9

269
CITY OF LAKE FOREST
Lake Forest Rockfield 8 .5 8.6 8 .5 8 .5 8.0 8.6 7.9 8.0 7.9 8.2 8 .0 8 .5

CITY OF MISSION VIEJO
265 Alicia Muirlands 8 .4 8 .3 8 .3 8 .2 7.8 8.0 7 .8 8.0 7.8 8.0 7 .9 8 .1

Note l Concentrations arc in parts per million ppm federal one hour CO standard is 35 ppm State one hour CO standard is 20 ppm
I RECI SW CORNER 2 REC2 SE CORNER

3 REC3 NE CORNER
4 REC4 NW CORNER

CITY OF TUSTIN13

5 RECS S DEPARTURE MID BLOCK 6 REC6 N APPROACH MID BLOCK
7 REC7 E DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
8 REC8 W APPROACH MID BLOCK
9 RECS N DEPARTURE MID BLOCK 10 REC10 S APPROACH MID BLOCK

l RECt 1 W DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
12 REC12 E APPROACH MID BLOCK
13 The ambient one hour CO concentration 12.0 ppm the second highest one hour CO concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Central Orange County Air Monitoring
Station between the years 1993 to 1997 is added to the calculated one hour levels
14 The ambient one hour CO concentration 7.0 ppm the second highest one hour CO concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Saddleback Valley Air Monitoring 115
115 Page 116 117
Table 36 Year 1998 Existing Conditions Plus ETRPA Non Aviation Plan Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration For Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS
INT INTERSECTING STREETS RECl RECS REC3 REC4 REC5 REC6 REC7 REC88 IZEC9 REClO RECll REC12

2 6 Jamboree Irvine
CITY OF IRVINE'S
238 Bake Irvinflrabuco 5 .2
260 Bake Rockfield 5 .2
1 7 5 Jamboree Michelson 5 .2
1 5 6 Jamboree Main 5 .2
2 3 7 Alton Irvine 5 .2
68 Sand Canyon Trabuco 5 .2
320 Trabuco I r v i n e 5 .2
3 3 8 M i l l e n n i u m Alton 5 .2
151 R e d H i l l MacArthur 5 .2
3 1 9 E Central Park I r v i n e 5 .2
1 3 0 Technology Barranca 5 .2
3 1 7 W Central Park Irvine 5 .2
316 Research I r v i n e 5 .2
318 M i l l e n n i u m Irvine 5 .2
3 3 7 Millennium Barranca 5 .2
3 2 Sand Canyon Irvine 5 .2

CITY OF LACUNA HILLS
2 8 0 El Toro Avd CarIota

CITY OF LAKE FORESTIS
2 6 9

2 6 5
Lake Forest Rockfield
CITY OF MISSION VIEJO
Alicia Muirlands 5 .2

Note Concentrations are in parts per million ppm federal and State 8 hour CO standard is 9 ppm
1 RECI SW CORNER
2 REC2 SE CORNER
3 REC3 NE CORNER

CITY OF TUSTIN
8 .7 8 .7

5 .5
5 .5
5 .5
5 .5
5 .5
5 .5
5 .5
5 .5
5 .5
5 .5
5 .5
5 .5
5 .5
5 .5
5 .5
5 .5

5 .5
5 .5
5 .5

5 .1
5 .1
5 .1
5 .1
5.1
5 .1
5 .1
5 .1
5 .1
5 .1
5 .1
5 .1
5 .1
5 .1
5 .1
5 .1

5 .1
5 .1
5 .1

9.1 I4 a 6
5 .1
5 .1
5.1
5 .1
5 .1
5.1
5 .1
5 .1
5 .1
5 .1
5 .1
5 .1
5 .1
5 .1
5 .1
5 .1

5 .1
5 .1
5 .1

4 .8 5 .2 4 .0
4 .8 5 .2 4 .8
4 .8 5 .2 4 8
4 .8 5 .2 4 .8

4.8 5 .2 4 .8 4 .8 5 .2 4 .8

4 .8 5 .2 4 .8
4 .8 5 .2 4 .8
4.8 5 .2 4 .0
4 .8 5 .2 4 .8
4 .8 5 .2 4 .8
4 .8 5 .2 4 .8
4 .8 5 .2 4 .8
4 .8 5 .2 4 .8
4 .8 5 .2 4 .8
4 .8 5 .2 4 .8

4 .8 5 .2 4 .8
4 .8 4 .2 4 .8
4 .8 5 .2 4 .8

8 .5

4 REC4 NW CORNER
5 RECS S DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
6 REC6 N APPROACH MID BLOCK
7 REC7 E DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
8 REC8 W APPROACH MID BLOCK
9 REC9 N DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
IO REClO S APPROACH MID BLOCK
I 1 REjZl I W DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
12 REC12 E APPROACH MID BLOCK

8 .4 8 .6
4 .7
4 .7
4 .7
4 .7
4 .7
4 .7
4 .7
4 .7
4 .7
4 .7
4 .7
4 .7
4 .7
4 .7
4 .7
4 .7

4 .7
4 .7
4 .7

8 .4 8 .5 8 .4 8 .5
4 .9
4 .9
4 .9
4.9
4 .9
4 .9
4 .9
4 .9
4.9
4 .9
4 .9
4 .9
4 .9
4 .9
4 .9
4 .9

4 .9
4 .9

4.9

4.9
4.9
4 .9
4.9
4 .9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9

4.9
4.9

4.9

4.9
4.9
4.9
4 9
4 .9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4 9
4 .9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9

4.9
4 .9

4 9

5 .2
4 .9
5 .0
5 .0
4 .9
4 .7
4 .7
4 .0
4 .8
4 .6
4 .6
4 .6
4 .6
4 .7
4 .9
4 .7

4 .7
5 .2

4.9

13 The ambient eight hour CO concentralion 8.0 ppm the second highest eight hour concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Central Orange County Air Monitoring
Station between the years of 1993 and 1997 is added to the product of the calculated one hour levels multiplied by a persistent factor of 0.7
I4 Number in bold represents cxceedance of the standards
15 The ambient eight hour CO concentration 4.1 ppm the second highest e i g h t h o u r cuncentration at the nearest air monitoring station Saddleback Valley Air Monitoring
Station between the years of 1993 a n d 1997 is added to the product of the calculated one hour levels multiplied by a persistent factor of 0.7

Pq 116
116 Page 117 118
a w Table
37 Year 2005 No Project Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration For Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS l

INT INTERSECTING STREETS RECl REC2 RE4Z3 REC4 REC5 RECd REC7 RECI RECJ REC10 REC11 REC12

3 4 5

154 MacArthur Main 13.1 13.3 13.1 13.2 13.0 12.9 12.8 13.1 13.0 13.2 12.8 12.9
5 4 Jamboree El Camino Real 13.0 13.1 13.3 13.0 12.6 12.9 12.7 12.8 12.7 12.7 12.9 12.9
105 Red Hill Warner 12.9 12.8 12.9 12.9 12.6 12.9 12.5 12.6 12.5 12.6 12.6 12.5
115 Von Karman Barranca 12.9 12.8 13.0 12.7 12.6 12.5 12.5 12.7 12.4 12.3 12.6 12.6
7 4 Tustin Ranch Walnut 12.5 12.5 12.4 12.7 12.2 12.2 12.4 12.4 12.3 12.5 12.3 12.3

116 Jamboree Barranca 8.5 8.5 8.2 8.1 7.8 8.1 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.2
1 5 6 Jamboree Main 8.4 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.9 8,2 7.8 8.0 7.9 8.1 7.8 8.2
175 Jamboree Michelson 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.1 7.8 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9
ISI Red Hill MacArthur 8.3 8.2 7.9 8.2 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.9 7.9 8.0 7,8 8.1
9 8 Culver Irvine Center 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.1 7.6 7.9 7.8 8.0 7.6 7.8 7.8 8.0
134 Jamboree Alton 8 I 8.1 8.2 7.9 7.7 7.9 7.6 7.7 7.6 7.7 7.8 8.0
I55 Von Karman Main 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.7 8.0 7.5 7.8 7.9 7.8
136 Culver Alton 8.0 8.2 8.0 7.9 7.6 8.0 7.6 7.8 7.6 7.9 7.7 7.9
177 Culver Michelson 7.9 8.1 7.9 7.8 7.4 7.0 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.6 7,8 7.8
195 MacArthur Jamboree 8.0 8.1 8.0 7.9 7.6 7.8 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.9 7.7 7.8
174 Von Karman Michelson 7.9 7.9 7.7 7.9 7.4 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.6 7.7 7.4 7.7
I39 Jeffrey Alton 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.9 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.8 7.5 7.5 7.8 7.8

280 El Toro Avd Carlota 8.0 7.8 7.9
2 6 5 Alicia Muirlands 8.1 8.2 8.1

CITY OF ORANGE
Jamboree Chapman

CITY OF SANTA ANA

CITY OF TUSTIN

CITY OF IRVINE

CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS
CITY OF MISStON VIEJO

12.8 12.8 13.0 12.7 12.5 l2,5 12.4 12.7 12.4 12.6 12.4 12.6
8.0
7.8
7.5 7.8 7.5 7.6 7.7
7.6 7.8 7.6 7.8
7.7
7.5 7.8
7.7
7.7
7.9
7.9
N o t e Concentrations are in parts per million ppm federal I hour CO standard is 35 ppm State 1 hour CO standard is 20 ppm
I RECI SW CORNER
2 REC 2 SE CORNER
3 REC3 NE CORNER
4 REC4 NW CORNER
5 RECS S DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
6 RFX6 N APPROACH MID BLOCK
7 REC7 E DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
8 REC8 W APPROACH MID BLOCK
9 REc9 N DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
IO REC IO S APPROACH MID BLOCK
I I RECI I W DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
12 REC I2 E APPROACH MID BLOCK
13 The ambient one hour CO concentration 12.0 ppm the second highest one hour CO concentration at the nearest air monitoring staGon Central Orange County Air Monitoring
Station between the years 1993 to 1997 is added to the calculated one hour levels
I4 The ambient one hour CO concentration 7 O ppm the second highest one hour CO concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Saddleback Valley Air Monitoring
Station between the years 1993 to 1997 is added to the calculated one hour levels 117
117 Page 118 119
Table 38 Year 2005 No Project Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Cokentration
For Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS

INT INTERSEmINC STREETS RECl REC2 REC REC4 RECS REC6 REC7 RECB REC99 REClO REC11 RECl2

3 4 5
CITY OF ORANGd3
Jamboree Chapman 8 .6 8 .6 8 .7 8 .5 a .4 8 .4 8 .3 8 .5

CITY OF SANTA ANA

1 5 4 MacArthur Main 8 .8 8 .9 8 .8 8 .8 8 .7 8 .6 8 6 8 .8
CITY OF TUSTIN
5 4 Jamboree El Camino Real 8 .7 8.8 0 .9 8 .7 8 .4 8 .4 8 .5 8 .6
1 0 5 Red Hill Warner 8 .6 8 .6 8 .6 8 .6 8 .4 8 .6 8 .4 8 .4
1 1 5 Von Karman Barranca 8 .6 8 .6 8 .7 8 .5 8 .4 8 .4 8 .4 8 .5
7 4 Tustin Ranch Walnut 8 .4 a .4 8.3 8 .5 8.1 a I 8 .3 a .3

CITY OF IRVINE
II6 Jamboree Barranca 5 .2 5 .2 4 .9 4,9 4 .7 4 .9 4 .7 4 7
1 Jamboree Main 5 .1 4 .9 4 .9 4 .9 4 .7 4 .9 4 .7 4 .0
1 7 5 Jamboree Michelson 4.9 4.9 4 .9 4 .9 4 .7 4.9 4 .7 4 .7
151 Red Hill MacArthur 5 .0 4 .9 4 .7 4 .9 4 .5 4 .7 4 .6 4 .7
9 8 Culver h vine Center 4 .8 4 .9 4 .9 4 .9 4 .5 4 .7 4 .7 4 .8
134 Jamboree Alton 4 .9 4 .9 4 .9 4 .7 4 .6 4 .7 4 .5 4 .6
155 Von Karman Main 4 .7 4 .8 4 .9 4 .8 4 .8 4 .8 4 .6 4 .8
136 Culver Alton 4 .8 4.9 4 .8 4 .7 4 .5 4 .8 4 .5 4 .7
177 Culver Michelson 4 .7 4.9 4 .7 4 .7 4 .4 4 .7 4 .5 4 .5
I95 MacArthur Jamboree 4.8 4.9 4 .8 4 .7 4 .5 4 .7 4 .5 4 .5
174 Von Karman Michelson 4 .7 4 .7 4 .6 4 .7 4 .4 4 .5 4.5 4 .4
1 3 9 Jeffrey Alton 4 .8 4 .8 4 .8 4 .7 4 .6 4 .6 4 .6 4 .7

CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS
280 El Toro A v d Carlota 4 .8

2 6 5 A l i c i a Muirlands 4 .9
4 .7
4 .9
4 .7
4 .9
4 .8
CITY OF MISSION VIEJO
4 .7

4 .5
4 .5
4 .7
4 .7
4 .5
4 .5
4 .5
4 .7
Note Concentrations are in parts per million ppm federal and State 8 hour CO standard is 9 ppm
I RECI SW CORNER
2 REC2 SE CORNER
3 REC3 NE CORNER
4 REC4 NW CORNER
5 RECS S DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
6 REC6 N APPROACH MID BLOCK
7 REC7 E DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
8 REC8 W APPROACH MID BLOCK
9 RE 39 N DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
10 RECIO S APPROACH MID BLOCK
I I RECI 1 W DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
I2 REC12 E APPROACH MID BLOCK

0 .3 8 .4 a .3 8 .4
8 .7 8.8 8 .6 8 .6
a .5 8 .5 8 .6 8 .6
8 .4 a 4 8 .4 8 .4
8 .3 8 .2 8 .4 a .4

8 .2 8 .4 8 .2 8 .2

4 .8 4 .8 4 .8 4 .9
4 .7 4 .9 4 .7 4 .9
4 .7 4 .7 4.7 4 .7
4 .7 4 .8 4 .7 4 .9
4 .5 4 .7 4 .7 4 .8
4 .5 4 .6 4 .7 4 .8
4 .5 4 .7 4 .7 4 .7
4.5 4 .7 4.6 4 .7
4 .6 4 .5 4 .7 4 .7
4 .7 4 .7 4.6 4 .7
4 .5 4 .6 4 .4 4 .6
4 .5 4 .5 4 .7 4 .7

4 .6 4 .6 4.6
4 .5 4 .7 4 .6
4 .7
4 .7

I3 The ambient eight hour CO concentration 8.0 ppm the second highest eight hour concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Central Orange County Air Monitoring
Station between the years of 1993 and 1997 is added to the product of the calculated one hour levels multiplied by a persistent factor of 0.7
14 The ambient eight hour CO concentration 4 I ppm the second highest eight hour wncentration at the nearest air monitoring station Saddleback Valley Air Monitoring

G 118
118 Page 119 120
Table 39 Year 2005 Alternative ES Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration
For Intersections with the HigheJt Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS

INT INTERSECTING STREETS RECl REC2 REd REC4 REd REd R E C 7 RECS RECg9 REClO REW REC12

154 MacArthur Main 13.1 13.2 13.1 13.2 13.0 12,9 12.8 13.1 13.0 13.2 12.8 12.9
ClTY OF TUSTIN
5 4 Jamboree El Camino Real 13.0 l3 l 13.3 13.0 12.6 1 2 .9 12.7 12.8 12.7 12.7 12.9 12.9
1 0 5 Red Hill Warner 12.9 12.8 12.9 12.9 12.6 1 2 .9 12.5 12.6 12.5 12.6 12.6 12.6
1 1 5 Von Karman Bmanca 12.9 12.8 13.0 12.7 12.6 12.5 12.5 12.7 12.4 12.3 12.6 12.6
14 Tustin Ranch Walnut 12.5 12.5 12.4 12.7 12.2 12.2 12.4 12.4 12.3 12.5 12.3 12.3

CITY OF IRVINE
156 Jamboree Main 8 .4 8 .3 8 .3 8 .1 7 .9 8 .2 7 .8 8 .0 7 .9 8 .1 7 .8 8 .2
I14 Jamboree Bmanca 8 .5 8 .5 8 .2 8 .1 7 .8 8 .1 7 .8 7 .9 8 .0 8 O 8 .0 8 .2
1 7 5 Jamboree Michelson 8 .2 8 .1 8 .1 8.1 7 .8 8 .1 7 .8 7 .8 7 .9 7 .9 7 .9 7 .9
151 R e d H i l l MacArthur 8 .3 8.1 7 .9 8 .2 7 .6 7.9 7 .7 7 .9 7 .9 8 .0 7 .8 8 .1
1 3 4 Jamboree Alton 8 .1 8 .1 8 .2 7 .9 7 .6 7.9 7 .6 7 .7 7 .6 7 .7 7 .8 8 .0
98 Culver Irvine Center 8 .0 8 .1 8 .1 8 .1 7 .6 7 .9 7 .8 8 .0 7 .6 7 .8 7 .8 8 .0
155 Von Karman Main 7 .9 8 .0 8 .1 8 .0 7 .9 8 .0 7 .7 8 .0 7 .5 7 .8 7 .9 7 .8
1 3 6 Culver AIton 8.1 8 .1 8 .0 7 .9 7 .7 8 .0 7 .6 7 .7 7 6 7 .9 7 .7 7 .9
1 7 7 Culver Michelson 8 .0 8 .0 7 .9 7 .8 7 .4 7 .8 7 .5 7 .6 7 .7 7 .6 7 .8 7 .8
3 2 1 Access Rd West I r v i n e 7 .6 7 .7 7 .7 7 .8 7 .5 7 .5 7 .6 7 .7 7 .4 7 .4 7 .5 7 .7
320 Pcrimiter Rd Irvine 7 .9 8 .0 7 .9 7 .8 7 .7 7 .5 7 .5 7 .7 7 .3 7 .3 7 .6 7 .7
IS5 Von Karmas Michelson 7 .8 7 .8 7 .7 7 .8 7 .4 7 .5 7 .6 7 .5 7 .5 7 .6 7 .5 7 .8

280
CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS
El Toro Avd Carlota 8 .0 7 .9 7 .9 8 .0 7s 7 .8 7 .5 7 .6 7 .6 7 .7 7 .8

CITY OF MlSSlON VIEJO
2 6 5 A l i c i a Muirlands 8 .1 8 .2 8 .1

CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
2 8 8 A l i c i a Paseo Valcncia 8 .1 8.1 8 .1

7 .9
7 .8
7 .6
7 .5
7 .8
7 .8
7 .6 7 .8 7 .5 7 .8
7 .6
7 .7
7 .8
7 .9
7 .6 7 .5 7 .6 7 .8 7 .8
Note Concentrations arc in parts per million ppm federal 1 hour CO standard is 35 ppm State I hour CO standard is 20 ppm
I RECl SW CORNER
2 REC2 SE CORNER
3 REC3 NECORNER
4 REC4 NW CORNER

CITY OF SANTA ANA

5 RECS S DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
6 REC6 N APPROACH MID BLOCK
7 REC7 E DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
8 RECS W APPROACH MID BLOCK
9 REC9 N DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
10 kECI0 S APPROACH MiD BLOCK
1 I RECll W DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
12 REC12 E APPROACH MID BLOCK
I 3 The ambient one hour CO concentration 12.0 ppm the second highest one hour CO concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Central Orange County Air Monitoring
Station between the years 1993 to 1997 is added to the calculated one hour levels
14 The ambient one hour CO concentration 7.0 ppm the second highest one hour CO concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Seddlcback Valley A i r M o n i t o r i n g
Station between the years 1993 t o 1997 is added to the caIculatcd one hour Icvels 4 r

7 119
119 Page 120 121
Table 40 Year 2005 Alternative B Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration
For Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS

INT INTERSECTING STREETS RECl mc2 REC3 RECJ RECS REC6 REC7 RECS REd REC10 RECl1 REC12

lS4 MacArthur Main 0 .8 8 8 8 .8 8.8 8 .7 8 .6 8 .6 8 .8 8 .7 8.8 8 .6 8 .6
5 4 Jamboree El Camino Real 8 .7 8 .8 8 .9 8 .7 a .4 8 .6 8 .5 8 .6 8 .5 8 .5 8 .6 8 .6
IQ5 Red Hill Warner 8 .6 8 .6 8 .6 8 .6 8 .4 8 .6 8 .4 8 .4 8 .4 8 .4 8.4 8 .4
II5 Von Karman Barranca 8 .6 8 .6 8 .7 8 .5 8 .4 a .4 8 .4 8 .5 8 .3 8 .2 8 .4 8 .4
7 4 Tustin Ranch Walnut 8 .4 8 .4 8 .3 8 .5 8 l 8 .1 8 .3 8 .3 8 .2 8 .4 8 .2 8 .2

156 Jambortc Main 5 .1 5 .0 5 .0 4 .9 4 .7 4 .9 4 .7 4 .8 4 .7 4 .9 4 .7 4 .9 116 Jamboree Barranca 5 .2 5 .2 4 .9 4 .9 4 .7 4 .9 4 .7 4 .7 4 .8 4 .8 4 .8 4 .9
1 7 5 Jamboree Michelson 4 .9 4 .9 4 .9 4 .9 4 .7 4 .9 4 .7 4 .7 4 .7 4 .7 4 .7 4 .7
ISI Red Hill MacArthur 5 .0 4 .9 4 .7 4 .9 4 .5 4 .7 4 .6 4 .7 4 .7 4 .8 4 .7 4 .9 1 3 4 Jamboree Alton 4 .9 4 .9 4 .9 4 .7 4 .5 4 .7 4 .5 4 .6 4 .5 4 .6 4 .7 4 .8

9 8 Culver Irvine Center 4 .8 4 .9 4 .9 4 .9 4 .5 4 .7 4 .7 4 .8 4 .5 4 .7 4 .7 4 .8 155 Von Karman Main 4 .7 4 .8 4 .9 4 .8 4 .7 4 .8 4 .6 4 .8 4 .5 4 .7 4 .7 4 .7
I36 Culver Alton 4 .9 4 .9 4 .8 4 .7 4 .6 4 .8 4 .5 4 .6 4 .5 4 .7 4 .6 4 .7 177 Culver Michelson 4 .8 4 .8 4 .7 4 .7 4 .4 4 .7 4 .5 4 .5 4 .6 4 .5 4 .7 4 .7
3 2 1 Access Rd West 8c Irvine 4 .5 4 .6 4 .6 4 .7 4 .5 4 .5 4.5 4 .6 4 .4 4 .4 4.5 4 .6 3 2 0 Perimiter Rd hint 4 .7 4.0 4 .7 4 .7 4 .6 4 .5 4 .5 4 .6 4 .3 4 .3 4 .5 4 .6
155 Von Karman Michelson 4 .7 4 .7 4 .6 4 .7 4 .4 4 .5 4 .5 4 .5 4 .5 4.5 4 .5 4 .7

280 El Tore Avd Carlota 4 .8
2 6 5 Alicia Muirlands 4 .9

CITY OF SANTA ANA
CITY OF TUSTI N

CITY OF IRVINE

CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS
CITY OF MJSSION VIEJO

CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
2 8 8 Alicia Paseo Valcncia 4 .9

4 .7
4.9
4.9

4 .7
4 .9

4 .9

4 .8
4 .7

4 .7

4 .5
4 .5

4 .5

4 .7
4 .7
4 .7

4 .5
4 .5
4 .5

4 .5
4 .7
4 .5

4.5
4 .5

4.5

4 .6 4 .5
4 .7
4 .7
4 .6
4 .7
Note Concentrations are in parts per million ppm federal and State 8 hour CO standard is 9 ppm
1 RECI SW CORNER 2 REC2 SE CORNER

3 REC3 NE CORNER 4 REC4 NW CORNER
S RECS S DEPARTURE MID BLOCK 6 REC6 N APPROACH MID BLOCK
7 REC7 E DEPARTURE MID BLOCK 8 REC8 W APPROACH MID BLOCK
9 REC9 N DEPARTURE MID BLOCK IO REC IO S APPROACH MID BLOCK
I I RECI 1 W DEPARTURE MID BLOCK I2 RECl2 E APPROACH MID BLOCK
13 The ambient eight hour CO concentration 8.0 ppm the second highest eight hour concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Central Orange County Air Monitoring Station between the years of 1993 and 1997 is added to the product of the calculated one hour levels multiplied by a persistent factor of 0.7
I4 The ambient eight hour CO concentration 4 I ppm the second highest eight hour concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Saddleback Valley Air Monitoring Station between the wars of 1993 and 1997 is added to the moduct of the calculated one hour levels multi d bv a nersistent factor of 0.7

4 .7
4 .7
4 .7 120
120 Page 121 122
Table 41 Year 2010 No Project Predicted One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration
For Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS

INT INTERSECTING STREETS RECI RECZ REC3 RECQ RECSS RECd REC7 RECd REC99 RECIO RECl1 REC12

3 4 5
CITY OF ORANGE
Jamboree Chapman 1 2 .9 1 2 .9 1 3 .0 12.8 12.8 1 2 .6 12.8 12.9 12.5 1 2 .6 1 2 .6 12.7

CITY OF SANTA ANAl

1 5 4 MacArthur Main 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.2 1 3 .0 1 2 .8 1 2 .8 13.1 12.8 13.1 1 2 .7 1 2 .9
152 Main Sunflower 1 3 .0 13.1 1 2 .7 13.1 1 2 .6 1 2 .9 12.5 12.4 1 2 .6 1 2 .8 13.1 1 2 .9
9 0 Grand Edinger 1 3 .0 1 3 .0 13.1 13.1 1 2 .7 1 2 .9 1 2 .7 1 3 .1 1 2 .6 1 2 .9 1 2 .7 1 2 .9
1 1 4 Red Hill Dytr Barranca 1 2 .9 1 3 .0 12.9 13.1 1 2 .6 12,7 12.5 1 2 .7 1 2 .4 1 2 .8 1 2 .6 12.8

CITY OF TUSTIN
9 3 Newport Edingcr 54 Jamboree E l Camino Real
1 0 5 Red Hit1 Warner
1 1 5 Von Karman Barranca 9 4 Red Hill Edinger

1 3 .2 13.1 1 2 .8 1 3 .0 1 2 .7 1 2 .9 12.5 1 2 .6 1 2 .6 1 2 .7 1 2 .6 1 2 .9
1 3 .0 13.1 13.1 12.9 1 2 .6 1 2 .9 12.5 12.8 12.7 1 2 .6 1 2 .9 12.9 1 2 .9 1 2 .8 1 2 .9
12.8 1 2 .6 1 2 .8 12.5 12,6 12.5 1 2 .8 1 2 .7 1 2 .6 12 1 2 .8 1 2 .9 .12.6 1 2 .5 1 2 .5 12.5 12.6 12.4 1 2 .3 1 2 .5 12.5

1 2 .7 1 2 .9 13.1 12.8 1 2 .7 1 2 .9 12.6 12.9 1 2 .6 1 2 .7 1 2 .7 1 2 .6

CITY OF IRVINE
I16 Jamboree Barranca 8 .3 8 .4 8 .1 8 .1 7 .8 8 .0 7 .8 7 .9 8 .0 8 .0 7 .9 8 .2 1 5 6 Jamboree Main 8 .3 8 .2 8 .1 7 .9
7 .9 8 .1 7 .9 8 .1 7 .8 7 .9 7 .9 8 .2 1 7 5 Jamboree Michelson 8 .1 8 .0 8 .1 8 .0
7 .6 8 .0 7 .7 7 .7 7 .9 7 .8 7 .9 7 .9 1 3 4 Jamboree Alton 8 .1 8 .0 8 .2 7 .9 7 .7 7 .9 7 .6 7 .6 7 .7 7 .7 7 .7 8 .0

1 5 1 Red Hill MacArthur 8 .2 8 .0 7 .9 8 .0 7 .6 7 .8 7 .7 7.8 7 .9 7 .9 7 .0 7 .9
9 8 Culver Irvine Center 7 .9 7,9 8 .1 8 .1 7 .6 7 .8 7 .8 8 .0 7 .6 7 .7 7 .8 7 .9 1 5 5 Von Karman Main 7 .9 8 .0 8 .0 8 .0
7 .7 7 .9 7 .6 7 .8 7 .5 7 .8 7 .8 7 .7 1 7 7 Culver Michelson 7 .8 7 .9 7 .7 7 .6 7 .4 7 .7 7 .5 7 .6 7 .7 7 .6 7 .8 7 .8

1 9 5 MacArthur Jamboree 8 .0 7 .9 7 .8 7 .8 7 .5 7 .8 1 .4 7 .6 7 .7 7 .7 7 .7 7 .7

CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS
2 8 0 El Toro Avd Carlota 7 .8 7 .7 7 .8 7 .8 7 .5 7 .6 7 .4 7 .6 7 .6 7 .6 1 .5 7 .7

Note Concentrations are in parts per million ppm federal 1 hour CO standard is 35 ppm State 1 hour CO standard is 20 ppm
I REC1 SW CORNER
2 REC2 SE CORNER
3 R E C 3 N E C O R N E R 4 REC4 NW CORNER

S RECS S DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
6 REC6 N A P P R O A C H M I D B L O C K
7 REC7 E DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
8 RECS W A P P R O A C H M I D B L O C K
9 REC9 N DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
1 0 RECIO S APPROACH MID BLOCK
1 1 RJXI 1 W DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
1 2 REC12 E APPROACH MID BLOCK
1 3 The ambient one hour CO concentration 12.0 ppm the second highest one hour CO concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Central Orange County Air Monitoring
Station between the years 1993 to 1997 is added to the calculated one h o u r l e v e l s
1 4 The ambient one hour CO concentration 7.0 ppm the second highest one hour CO concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Saddleback Valley Air Monitoring Station between the years 1993 to 1997 is added to the calculated one hour levels

P7 121
121 Page 122 123
Table 42 Year 2010 No Project Predicted Eight Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration
For Intersections with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service LOS

INT INTERSECTING STREETS RECl REC2 REC3 REC4 RECS RECd REC7 RECS REC9 REClO RECll REC1212

3 4 5

1 5 4 MacArthur Main 8 .8 8 .8 8 .8 8 .8 a .7 8 .6 8 .6 8 .8 8 .6 8 .8 8 .5 a .6
I52 Main Sunflower a .7 8 .8 a 5 8 .8 a .4 8 .6 a .4 a .3 a .4 8 .6 a 8 8 .6
90 Grand Edinger 8 .7 a .7 8 .8 8 .8 8 .5 8 .6 8 .5 8 .8 a .4 8 .6 8 .5 8 .6
1 1 4 Red Hill Dyer Barranca 8 .6 a .7 8 .6 8 .8 8 .4 8 .5 8 .4 a .5 a .3 8 .6 a .4 8 .6

9 3 Newport Edinger 8 .8 8 .8
5 4 Jamboree El Camino Real a .7 8 .8
1 0 5 Red Hill Warner 8 .6 8 .6
1 1 5 Von Karman Bamanca 8 .6 8 .6 9 4 Red Hill Edinger 8 .5 8 .6

II6 Jamboree Barranca 1 5 6 Jamboree Main
1 7 5 Jamboree Michelson 1 3 4 Jamboree Alton
IS1 Red Hill MacArthur
9 8 Culver Irvine Center
155 Von Karman Main 177 Culver Michelson

1 9 5 MacArthur Jamboree

2 8 0 El Toro Avd Carlota

ClTY OF ORANGE
Jamboree Chapman

CITY OF SANTA ANA

CITY OF TUSTIN
CITY OF IRVINE

CITY OF LACUNA HILLS

8 .6 8 .6 a 7 8 .6 8 .4 8 .4 8 .6 8 .6 8 .4 a .4 a .4 8 .5
a .7 8 .5 8 .6 a .4 a .4 8 .4 8 .5 8 .4 8 .6
8 .6 a .4 a .6 a .4 8 .6 8 .5 8 .4 8 .6 8 .6
8 .6 a .4 8 .6 8 .4 8 .4 8 .4 8 .6 8 .5 a .4 a .4 a .4 a .4 a .4 8 .4 a .3 a .2 a .4 a .4

8 .6 8 .5 8 .6 a .4 8 .6 a .4 a .5 8 .5 a .4

5 .0 5 .0
4 .9
4 .9
4 .9
4 .7 4 .7

4 .7
4 .0

4 .7

5 .1
4 .9 4 .8

4 .8
4 .8
4.7 4 .8

4 .7
4 .7

4 .9 4 .7
4 .8 4 .7
4 .8
4 .9 4 .8

4 .5
4 .7

4 .7

4 .7 4 .8 4 .7 4 .7 4 .8 4 .8 4 .7 4 .9 4 .7 4 .9 4 .7 4 .9 4 .7 4 .7 4 .7 4 .9
4 .5 4 .8 4 .6 4 .6 4 .7 4 .7 4 .7 4 .7 4 .6 4 .7 4 .5 4 .5 4 .6 4 .6 4 .6 4 .0
4 .5 4 .7 4 .6 4 .7 4 .7 4 .7 4 .7 4 .7
4 .5 4 .7 4 .7 4 .8 4 .5 4 .6 4 .7 4 .7 4 .6 4 .7 4 .5 4 .7 4 .5 4 .7 4 .7 4 .6

4 .4 4 .6 4 .5 4 .5 4 .6 4 .5 4 .7 4 .7
4 .5 4 .7 4 .4 4 .5 4 .6 4 .6 4 .6 4 .6

4 .6

8 .6 8 .8
8 .6
8 .6
8 .8

4 .9
4 .9 4 .9

4 .9
4 .7
4 .9 4 .8

4 .6
4 .7

4 .7 4 .5 4 .5 4 .4 4 .5 4 .5 4 .5 4 .5 4 .6
Note l Concentrations are in parts per million ppm federal and State 8 hour CO standard is 9 ppm
I RECl SW CORNER
2 REC2 SE CORNER
3 REC3 NE CORNER 4 WC4 NW CORNER

5 RECS S D E P A R T U R E M I D B L O C K
6 REC6 N APPROACH MID BLOCK
7 REC7 E DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
8 REC8 W A P P R O A C H M I D B L O C K
9 REC9 N DEPARTURE MID BLOCK
IO RECIO S APPROACH MID BLOCK II RECI 1 W DEPARTURE MID BLOCK

1 2 REC12 E APPROACH MID BLOCK
13 The ambient eight hour CO concentration 8.0 ppm the second highest eight hour concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Central Orange C o u n t y Air Monitoring Station between the years of 1993 and 1997 is added to the produce of the calculated one hour levels multiplied by a persistent factor of 0.7

1 4 The ambient eight hour CO concentration 4.1 ppm the second highest eight hour concentration at the nearest air monitoring station Saddleback Valley Air Monitoring
Station between the years of 1993 and 1997 is added to the product of the calculated one hour levels multiplied b y a p e r s i s t e n t factor of 0.7 122
122 Page 123 124
123
123 Page 124 125
124
124 Page 125 126
125
125 Page 126 127
126
126 Page 127 128
127
127 Page 128 129
128
128 Page 129 130
129
129 Page 130 131
130
130 Page 131 132
131
131 Page 132 133
132
132 Page 133 134
133
133 Page 134 135
134
134 Page 135 136
135
135 Page 136 137
136
136 Page 137 138
137
137 Page 138 139
138
138 Page 139 140
139
139 Page 140 141
140
140 Page 141 142
141
141 Page 142 143
142
142 Page 143 144
Although no traffic data were available for the intersection of Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard under the Existing Plus Proposed Project Alternative B scenario it is anticipated
that the eight hour CO concentration at this intersection would continue to exceed the 9.0 ppm standard However the Proposed Project is not expected to contribute to the eight hour CO
concentration by more than 0.3 ppm
Tables 35 and 36 show the one hour and eight hour CO concentrations for the Existing
Conditions 1998 plus ETRPA Nonaviation Plan scenario CO concentrations for this scenario were included mainly for comparison with those of the Existing Conditions 1998 scenario due

to the unlikely scenario that this condition would occur Because of the CAL3QHC modeling selection criteria not all intersections modeled for the Existing Conditions 1998 scenario were
modeled for the Existing Conditions 1998 Plus ETRPA Nonaviation Plan scenario However for those intersections that were modeled under both scenarios the change would be 0.6 ppm or
smaller for the one hour CO concentrations None of the changes in the one hour CO concentrations would exceed the thresholds of significant changes 1 O ppm established by the
SCAQMD Some of the changes in CO concentrations would exceed the thresholds of significant changes 0.45 ppm for the eight hour CO concentration For example at the
intersection of Bake Parkway and Rockfield Road there would be a 0.5 ppm increase in the eight hour CO concentration at one receptor site and a 0.7 ppm increase at another receptor site Also
there would be a 0.8 ppm increase and a 0.5 ppm increase at two receptor locations at the intersection of El Toro Road and Avenida de la Carlota In addition there would be a 0.5 ppm
increase in eight hour CO concentration at the intersection of Lake Forest Drive and Rockfield Road Finally one receptor site at Jamboree Road and Irvine Boulevard would continue to
experience eight hour CO concentrations exceeding the 9.0 ppm standard similar to the Existing Conditions 1998

Tables 37 and 38 list the one hour and eight hour CO concentrations for the year 2005 No
Project scenario Tables 39 and 40 list the one hour and eight hour CO concentrations for the year 2005 Proposed Project Alternative B scenario Tables 41 and 42 list the one hour and

eight hour CO concentrations for the year 2010 No Project scenario Tables 43 and 44 list the one hour and eight hour CO concentrations for the year 2010 Proposed Project Alternative B
scenario Tables 45 and 46 list the one hour and eight hour CO concentrations for the year 2015 No Project scenario Tables 47 and 48 list the one hour and eight hour CO concentrations for
the year 2015 Proposed Project Alternative B scenario Tables 49 and 50 list the one hour and eight hour CO concentrations for the year 2020 No Project scenario Tables 51 and 52 list the
one hour and eight hour CO concentrations for the year 2020 Alternative B scenario In addition Tables 53 and 54 list the one hour and eight hour CO concentrations for the year 2020
Alternative A scenario Tables 55 and 56 list the one hour and eight hour CO concentrations for the year 2020 Alternative C scenario Tables 57 and 58 list the one hour and eight hour CO
concentrations for the year 2020 Alternative F scenario Tables 59 and 60 list the one hour and eight hour CO concentrations for the year 2020 Alternative G scenario Tables 61 and 62 list
the one hour and eight hour CO concentrations for the year 2020 ETRPA Nonaviation Plan scenarro

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 143
143 Page 144 145
Figure 7 depicts the 20 intersections selected for analysis of CO concentrations using the
criteria of intersections with the highest ten traffic volumes and ten worst levels of service under the Existing Plus the Proposed Project Alternative B scenario CO concentrations were also

shown fur the intersection of Grand Avenue and Edinger Avenue Although this intersection is not among the ten highest trtic volumes or the ten worst levels of service it is included here
because its eight hour CO concentration reached the 9.0 ppm standard level under the Existing Conditions 1998 scenario It is shown here that the project would contribute to 0.1 ppm or less
to the eight hour CO concentration at this intersection and no exceedance of the eight hour CO standard would occur under this scenario Figures 8 and 9 depict the 20 intersections analyzed
for the CO hot spot analysis under the year 2020 No Project and Proposed Project Alternative B respectively scenarios

It should be noted that Alternatives H and I have less projected traffic than Proposed Project Alternative B on the roadway network in the project vicinity therefore they would be expected
to have lower one hour and eight hour CO concentrations than the Proposed Project Alternative B Alternative J has the same projected passenger numbers as the Proposed Project Alternative
B with different runway layout and should have traffic volumes and CO concentrations in the project vicinity similar to those of Alternative B Alternative K has a projected passenger
number higher than Alternative B but might be located at an alternative site that is outside of Orange County therefore whether or not it significantly affects traffic flow and CO
concentrations in Orange County depends on the location
These tables show that all future years one hour and eight huur CO concentrations are in compliance with the one hour State and federal CO standards No exceedance of the one hour or
eight hour State and federal CO standards would occur at any of these intersections including those that exceeded the eight hour CO standard under the existing condition with the highest
traffic volumes or worst levels of service even under the worst case condition of using the existing ambient CO levels as future background CO concentrations In general this is due to
the fact that emission factors in the Wure years will be smaller than those under the Existing Conditions 1998 Although traffic volumes would increase in the future years along many of
the roadways according to the 1994 AQMP and 1997 AQMP and SIP projections improvements are anticipated in the future vehicle mix so that emissions reductions would more
than offset traffic increases at these modeled intersections In each of the phasing years no project related local CO hot spot impact
the Proposed Project would not result in vehicles would occur under the Proposed Project Therefore any significant local air quality impacts due to motor

6.3.2 Local Air Quality
This section details the local pollutant
mpacts Due to Aircraft concentrations
that would be generated by aircraft operations at the MCAS El Toro site and at John Wayne Airport for the future alternatives The
runway utilization used in this study is based on the specific aircrti performance data developed for this project as well as wind conditions over the course of the day and is described in the

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 144
144 Page 145 146
l CO HOT SPOT MODELING LOCATION
county of Orange Figure 7
SOURCE LSA Associates Inc CO Hot Spot Modeling Locations

Existing Plus Proposed Project Condition
No Scale 145
145 Page 146 147
a
I

C o u n t y o f O r a n g e Figure 8

SOURCE LSA Associates Inc CO Hot Spot Modeling Locations

2020 No Project No
Scale 146
146 Page 147 148
m
LEGEND
l CO HOT SPOT MODELING LOCATION

r SOURCE LSA sociates Inc CO Hot Spot Modeling Locations
-2020 Proposed Project

No Scale 147
147 Page 148 149
aviation study of the Proposed Project The OCCA Team Technical Report 5 revised November 5 1999 The performance data are impmtmt to runway utilization because of the physical
characteristics of the MCAS El Toro site
The project aviation alternatives are addressed in this section The data in this section were obtained by running the EDMS model The EDMS model predicted emission concentrations at
14 sites in the vicinity of the proposed OCX and 11 sites in the vicinity of John Wayne Airport The following paragraphs discuss pollutant concentrations at the receptor locations modeled in
the EDMS program The data in the following tables include background concentrations for the various pollutants that are discussed For CO the second highest concentrations 7.0 ppm and
4.1 ppm for the one hour and eight hour periods respectively monitored at the Saddleback Valley monitoring station in the past five years that were used as the existing background
concentrations were also used as the future background concentrations as a worst case scenario The remaining background concentrations were derived from averaging thk existing
measurement data obtained at the nearest station operated by the SCAQMD the North Orange Coast monitoring station that monitors both NO2 and SOz The existing averages were then
multiplied by the ratio of the existing basin wide emissions to the estimated future basin wide emissions for each pollutant The basin wide emissions were obtained from the 1997 AQMP
The future background concentrations are 0.113 ppm for the one hour NO concentration and 0.017 ppm for the annual arithmetic mean AAM N02 and 0.019 ppm for the one hour SO2 and
0.003 ppm for the 24 hour SO2
It should be noted that although airports are a complex source of CO NOx HC and particulates measurement studies have demonstrated that concentrations at airports are generally
similar to urban areas Air Quality Measurements in the Vicinity of Airports Alistair I Clark et al 1983 Where violations of air quality standards or guidelines have been recorded airport
related sources are not indicated to be the major contribution
Tables 63 and 64 show the pollutant concentrations under the Existing Conditions Plus Proposed Project 2020

Tables 65 through 71 list the pollutant concentrations under the future conditions Tables 65 and
66 list the pollutant concentrations at JWA and OCX for the Proposed Project Alternative B in 2010 Tables 67 and 68 list the pollutant concentrations at JWA and OCX for the

Proposed Project Alternative B in 2020 Table 69 lists the pollutant concentrations at JWA for Alternative E No Project in year 2020 Tables 70 and 71 list the pollutant concentrations at
JWA for Alternatives F and G respectively in year 2020 Figure 10 shows the receptor locations modeled for the proposed OCX in year 2010 and 2020 Receptor locations for JWA
are the same as those shown in Figure 5 The following discusses concentration variations for each pollutant under various scenarios

Pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of John Wayne Airport under the Proposed Project 2020 Alternative B would be lower than those of the Existing Conditions 1998 due to lower
passenger LTO cycles for the Proposed Project

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 148
148 Page 149 150
Table 63 Existing Conditions Plus Proposed Project 2020 Pollutant Concentrations JWA
Worst Case Operations and Meteorology

llonte Vista High School 1 8.84 I c5.14 I x0.152 0.0214 0.021 1 eo 004 I
Jewport Beach Golf course 8.84 5.14 I ori 0.0215 1 co 021 1 co 004
I
anta Ana Country Club 1 8.84 1 x5.14 T x0.152 1 0.0215 1 CO 021 1 co 004 1

Lesidential Area East of Campus Drive c8.84 1 5.14 0.152 1 0.0232 1 co 021 j 0.004

heraton Newport Beach 1 8.84 I c5.14 I 0.152 1 0.0238 1 co 021 1 co 004 I
Zounty Superintendent of Schools 8.84 K5.14 x0.152 0.0219 co 02 1 x0.004

outh Terminal 9.57 5.24 0.155 0.0300 0.023 0.004
ire Station I 8.84 I c5.14 KO 152 0.0248 1 0.021 1 co 004 I
lorth Terminal I 962 1 567 0.153 1 0.0308 1 0.022 1 0.004 1
xecutive Park I 8.84 I c5.14 I 0.152 1 0.0233 1 0.021 1 co 004 I
ky Park
ederal Standard tate Standard

T
x8.84 c5.14 0.152 0.0218 KO 02 1 0.004

35 PPm 9.0 ppm N A 0.0534 ppm N A 0.14 ppm 20 PPm 9.0 ppm 0.25 ppm N A 0.25 ppm 0.04 ppm

UUX CH2M Hill and LSA Associates Inc 1999 NOTE 1 Includes ambient l hour CO concentration of 7 ppm and l hour CO concentration
reported by EDMS 2 Includes ambient 8 hour CO concentration of 4.1 ppm and 8 hour CO
concentration reported by EDMS 3 Includes ambient l hour NO2 concentration of 0.143 ppm and one tenth of the lhour
NOx concentration reported by EDMS 4 Includes ambient AAM NO2 concentration of 0.0213ppm and 75 percent of the
annual NOx concentration reported by EDMS S Includes ambient l hour SO concentration of 0.018 ppm and l hour SOX
concentration reported by EDMS
PI Includes ambient 24 hour SO2 concentration of 0.0028 ppm and 24 hour SOx concentration reported by EDMS

County of Orange EIR No 573 l40 Air Quality Technical Report 149
149 Page 150 151
Table 64 Existing Conditions Plus Proposed Project 2020 Pollutant Concentrations OCX
Worst Case Operations and Meteorology

Portola Parkway Rt 33 c9.13 c5.19 co 194 0.0224 co 034 0.009
Terminal North 9.96 5.91 co 194 0.0328 co 034 0.009
Airport Hotel 10.34 5.59 x0.194 0.0406 0.036 0.011 c
Terminal West 12.95 6.76 o 194 0.0369 co 034 x0.009
Terminal CentraI 13.95 6.44 0.209 0.03 77 co 034 co 009
El Toro Golf Course 9.16 5.19 co 194 0.0305 co 034 0.009
Old Town Irvine 10.16 x5.19 co 194 0.0307 co 034 x0.009
Irvine Boulevard east of c9.13 c5.19 co 194 0.0326 co 034 co 009 Runway 25

Irvine Boulevard north x9.13 c5.19 co 194 0.0241 co 034 co 009 of Runway 16
L Irvine Transportation 9.50 5.21 0.229 0.0626 0.045 0.009

Center
Altun Parkway south of Runway 34 c9.13 G 19 0.194 0.0416 co 034 0.009

Residential Area Leisure World c9.13 c5.19 co 194 0.03 14 co 034 0.009
Jeronimo Road and Bake Parkway I I 9.13 c5.19 co 194 0.0224 co 034 0.009
Musick Jail 9.55 c5.19 co 194 0.0330 co 034 0.009
Federal Standard 35 PPm 9.0 ppm N A 0.0534 ppm N A 0.14 ppm State Standard
20 PPm 9.0 ppm 025 ppm N A 0.25 ppm 0.04 ppm Source CH2M Hill and LSA Associates Inc 1999

NOTE l Includes ambient l hour CO concentration of 7 ppm and l hour CO concentration reported by EDMS

PI Includes ambient 8 hour CO concentration of 4.1 ppm and 8 hour CO concentration reported by EDMS
PI Includes ambient l hour NO2 concentration of 0.143 ppm and one tenth of the l hour NOx concentration reported by EDMS
PI IncIudes ambient AAM NO2 concentration of 0.0213 ppm and 75 percent of the annual NOx concentration reported by EDMS
151 Includes ambient l hour SO concentration of 0.018 ppm and l hour SOx concentration reported by EDMS
PI Includes ambient 24 hour SO2 concentration of 0.0028 ppm and 24 hour SOx concentration reported by EDMS
171 Number in bold represents exceedance of standard
County of Orange EIR No 573 141 Air Quality Technical Report 150
150 Page 151 152
Table 65 2010 Proposed Project Alternative B Pollutant Concentrations JWA Worst Case Operations
and Meteorology

ionte Vista High School 1 8.34 1 4.83 1 0.120 1 0.0171 1 co 022 1 co 004 1
ewport Beach Golf Course 8.34 1 c4.83 1 0.120 0.0172 1 x0.022 1

anta Ana Country Club x8.34 1 4.83 0.120 1 0.0172 1 CO 022 1 0.004 1
esidential Area East of Campus Drive 8.34 4.83 co 120 0.0185 eo 022 0.004

heraton Newport Beach 8.34 4.83 pr 0.0190 1 co 022 1 co 004 1
ounty Superintendent of Schools 8.34 4.83 1 0.120 1 0.0175 1 x0.022 1

outh Terminal I 9.03 I 5.02 I 0.122 I 0.0238 1 0.023 1 0.004 I
ire Station I 8.34 I 4.83 1 0.121 1 0.0198 CO 022 0.004 I
orth Terminal 8.66 5.12 0.121 0.0238 0.023 0.004
xecutive Park 8.34 4.83 co 120 0.0185 0.022 0.004

ky Park
edeml Standard
x8.34

35 PPm
x4.83
9.0 ppm
co 120 0.0208 co 022 co 004
N A 0.0534 ppm N A OJ4 ppm

Source CH2M Hill and LSA Associates Inc 1999
NOTE l

PI
PI
PI
PI
161

Includes ambient l hour CO concentration of 7 ppm and l hour CO concentration reported by EDMS
Includes ambient 8 hour CO concentration of 4.1 ppm and 8 hour CO concentration reported by EDMS
Includes ambient l hour NOz concentration of 0.113 ppm and one tenth of the l hour NOx concentration reported by EDMS
Includes ambient AAM NO concentration of 0.0 17 ppm and 75 percent of the annual NOx concentration reported by EDMS
Includes ambient l hour SO2 concentration of 0.019 ppm and I hour SOX concentration reported by EDMS
Includes ambient 24 hour SO2 concentration of 0.003 ppm and 24 hour SOX concentration reported by EDMS

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 151
151 Page 152 153
Table 66 2010 Proposed Project Alternative B Pollutant Concentrations OCX Worst Case Operations
and Meteorology

Portola Parkway Rt 33 9.39 e4.96 co 145 0.0187 CO 029 0.006
Terminal North 12.49 5.69 x0.145 0.0250 0.029 0.006
Airport Hotel 10.15 5.91 0.145 0.0247 co 029 0.006
Terminal West 8.98 4.96 co 145 0.0256 0.029 x0.006
Terminal Central 1 I 17 5.57 0.150 0.0249 o o29 0.006
El Toro Golf Course 8.98 4.96 co 145 0.0238 co 029 0.006
Old Town Irvine 8.98 x4.96 co 145 0.0220 co 029 x0.006
Irvine Boulevard east of 8.98 c4.96 0.145 0.0243 co 029 0.006 Runway 25

Irvine Boulevard north 10.13 4.98 co 145 0.0194 eo 029 0.006 of Runway 16
L Irvine Transportation 9.11 5.47 0.179 0.0460 0.03 8 0.007

Center
Alton Parkway south of 8.98 4.96 0.149 0.0307 co 029 0.006 Runway 34

Residential Area Leisure 8.98 4.96 co 145 0.0241 co 029 co 006 World
Jeronimo Road and Bake c8.98 c4.96 co 145 0.0178 co 029 go 006 Parkway
Musick Jail 8.98 4.96 co 145 0.0232 0.029 co 006 Federal Standard
35 PPm 9 O ppm N A 0.0534 ppm N A OJ4 ppm
State Standard 20 PPm 9.0 ppm 025 ppm N A 0.25 ppm 0.04 ppm

Source CH2M Hill and LSA Associates Inc 1999 NOTE l Includes ambient l hour CO concentration of 7 ppm and l hour CO concentration reported by

EDMS
PI Includes ambient 8 hour CO concentration of 4.1 ppm and hour CO concentration reported by EDMS

PI Includes ambient l hour NO2 concentration of 0.113 ppm and one tenth of the l hour NOx concentration reported by EDMS
PI Includes ambient AAM NO2 concentration of 0.017 ppm and 75 percent of the annual NOx concentration reported by EDMS
PI Includes ambient l hour SO2 concentration of 0.019 ppm and l hour SOX concentration reported by EDMS
161 Includes ambient 24 hour SO concentration of 0.003 ppm and 24 hour SOx concentration reported by EDMS

County of Orange EIR No 573 l4a Air Quality Technical Report 152
152 Page 153 154
Table 67 2020 Proposed Project Alternative B Pollutant Concentrations JWA Worst Case Operations
and Meteorology

donte Vista High School 1 8.84 I c5.14 I x0.122 1 0.0171 1 x0.022 1 co 004 I
Jewport Beach Golf c8.84 Course 1 5.14 1 co 122 1 0.0172 1 0.022 1 co 004
I

ranta Ana Country Club 1 8.84 1 c5.14 1 co 122 1 0.0172 1 co 022 1 co 004 1

kesidential Area East of Campus Drive c8.84 5.14 co 122 0.0189 1 0.022 1 co 004

lheraton Newport Beach I 8.84 I c5.14 I co 122 1 0.0195 1 co 022 1 0.004 I
bounty Superintendent of Schools 8.84 5.14 co 122 1 0.0176 1 0.022 1 0.004
I
louth Terminal I 9.57 I 5.24 1 0.125 1 0.0257 1 0.024 1 0.004 I

ire Station I 8.84 1 c5.14 co 122 1 0.0205 1 0.022 1 x0.004 1
Jorth Terminal I 962 1 567 0.123 1 0.0265 1 0.023 1 0.004 1
lxecutive Park I 8.84 I c5.14 co 122 I 0.0190 1 0.022 1 co 004 I
ky Park
ederal Standard Me Standard
x8.84
35 PPm 20 PPm
c5.14
9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
co 122 0.0175 co 022 co 004
N A 0.0534 ppm N A 0.14 ppm 0.25 ppm N A 0.25 ppm 0.04 ppm

wee CH2M Hill and LSA Associates Inc 1999 TIE l Includes ambient l hour CO concentration of 7 ppm and l hour CO concentration reported by
EDMS
PI Includes ambient 8 hour CO concentration of 4.1 ppm and 8 hour CO concentration reported by EDMS

PI Includes ambient l hour NO2 concentration of 0.113 ppm and one tenth of the l hour NOx concentration reported by EDMS
PI Includes ambient AAM NO2 concentration of 0.017 ppm and 75 percent of the annual NOx concentration reported by EDMS
PI Includes ambient l hour SO2 concentration of 0.019 ppm and l hour SOX concentration reported by EDMS
161 Includes ambient 24 hour SO concentration of 0.003 ppm and 24 hour SOX concentration reported by EDMS

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 153
153 Page 154 155
Table 68 2020 Proposed Project Alternative B Pollutant Concentrations OCX Worst Case Operations and
Meteorology

Portola Parkway Rt 33 c9.13 G 19 0.164 0.0181 co 035 0.009
Terminal North 9.96 5.91 0.164 0.0285 KO 035 0.009
Airport Hotel 10.34 5.59 0.164 0.0363 0.037 0.011
Terminal West 12.95 6.76 x0.164 0.0326 co 035 0.009
Terminal Central 13.95 6.44 0.179 0.0334 co 035 0.009
El Toro Golf Course 9.16 c5.19 co 164 0.0262 co 035 0.009
Old Town Irvine 10.16 c5.19 0.164 0.0264 co 035 0.009
Irvine Boulevard east of c9.13 c5.19 co 164 0.0283 co 035 o o09 Runway 25

Irvine Boulevard north c9.13 c5.19 0.164 0.0198 co 035 0.009

of Runway 16
Irvine Transportation 9.50 5.21 0.199 0.0583 0.046 0.009 Center

Alton Parkway south of G 13 c5.19 0.164 0.0373 co 035 KO 009 Runway 34
Residential Area Leisure 9.13 x5.19 0.164 0.027 1 co 035 0.009 World
r Jeronimo Road and Bake 9.13 619 co 164 0.0181 co 035 0.009

Parkway
Musick Jail 9.55 c5.19 co 164 0.0257 co 035 0.009
Federal Standard I 35 PPm 9.0 ppm N A 0.0534 ppm N A 0.14 ppm State Standard
20 PPm 9.0 ppm 0.25 ppm N A 0.25 ppm 0.04 ppm Source CH2M Hill and LSA Associates Inc 1999

NOTE l Includes ambient l hour CO concentration of 7 ppm and l hour CO concentration reported by EDMS

PI Includes ambient 8 hour CO concentration of 4.1 ppm and S hour CO concentration reported by EDMS
PI Includes ambient l hour NO2 concentration of 0.113 ppm and one tenth of the l hour NOx concentiation reported by EDMS
PI Includes ambient AAM NO concentration of 0,017 ppm and 75 percent of the annual NOx concentration reported by EDMS
sl Includes ambient l hour SO2 concentration of 0.019 ppm and l hour SOX concentration reported by EDMS
II63 Includes ambient 24 hour SO concentration of 0.003 ppm and 24 hour SOX concentration reported by EDMS
PI Number in bold represents exceedance of standard
County of Orange EIR No 573 l45 Air Quality Technical Report 154
154 Page 155 156
Table 69 2020 No Project Alternative E Pollutant Concentrations JWA Worst Case Operations
and Meteorology

Ionte Vista High School Ionte Vista High School
ewport Beach Golf ewport Beach Golf Course Course
9.72 G 57 I 0.0171 1 0.024 1 co 005 1 9.72 c5.57 co 128 0.0171 0.024 co 005
c9.72 c5.57 x0.128 c9.72 1 c5.57 1 x0.128 1 0.0170 0.0170 co 024 co 024 0.005

anta Ana Country Club 1 c9.72 c5.57 I co 128 1 0.0170 1 0.024 x0.005 1
esidential Area East of Campus Drive ~ 9.72 x5.57 128 0.0197 co 024 0.005 1 1 1 1 1

heraton Newport Beach 1 c9.72 I c5.57 I 0.128 1 0.0217 1 co 024 1 co 005 1

wth Terminal

anta Ana Country Club c9.72 c5.57 co 128 0.0170 0.024 x0.005
esidential Area East of 9.72 x5.57 co 128 0.0197 co 024 co 005 Campus Drive

heraton Newport Beach c9.72 c5.57 0.128 0.0217 0.024 co 005
ounty Superintendent of ounty Superintendent of c9.72 c5.57 0.128 0.0179 0.0179 0.024 co 005 co 005 Schools Schools 9.72 c5.57 1 0.128 1 CO 024 j

wth Terminal 11.17 6.18 0.133 0.0322 0.028 0.005 4

ire Station c9.72 c5.57 0.128 0.0223 0.024 0.005
orth Terminal 10.36 6.19 0.132 0.03 17 0.027 0.005
xecutive Park c9.72 c5.57 co 128 0.0202 0.025 co 005 A
ky Park 9.72 G 57 0.128 0.0178 x0.024 co 005
ederal Standard ederal Standard 35 35 PPm PPm 9.0 9.0 ppm ppm NIA NIA 1 10.0534 0.0534 ppm ppm N A N A 0.14 0.14 ppm ppm tate Standard tate Standard I 20 20 PPm PPm 9.0 9.0 ppm ppm 0.25 0.25 ppm ppm 1 1 N A N A 0.25 0.25 ppm ppm 0.04 0.04 ppm ppm

ire Station
I Il 17 1 618 1 0.133 0.0322 j 0.028 1 0.005 1

I c9.72 c5.57 0.128 0.0223 0.024 1 co 005 I orth Terminal 10.36 619 1 0.132 1 0.0317 1 0.027 1 0.005 1

xecutive Park I c9.72 1 c5.57 1 0.128 1 0.0202 1 0.025 co 005 1
ky Park 9.72 1 G 57 0.128 1 0.0178 x0.024 1 co 005 I

Source CH2M Hill and LSA Associates Inc 1999
NOTE l Includes ambient l hour CO concentration of 7 ppm and l hour CO concentration reported by EDMS

PI Includes ambient 8 hour CO concentration of 4.1 ppm and 8 hour CO concentration reported by EDMS
PI Includes ambient l hour NOa concentration of 0.113 ppm and one tenth of the l hour NOx concentration reported by EDMS
PI Includes ambient AAM NO2 concentration of 0.017 ppm and 75 percent of the annual NOx concentration reported by EDMS
PI Includes ambient l hour SO2 concentration of 0.019 ppm and l hour SOX concentration reported by EDMS
161 Includes ambient 24 hour SO2 concentration of 0.003 ppm and 24 hour SOX concentration reported by EDMS

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 155
155 Page 156 157
Table 70 2020 Alternative F Pollutant Concentrations JWA Worst Case Operations and Meteorology
1 Monte Vista High School 1 5.46 I co 141 I 0.0172 1 co 029 1 0.006
c9.94 5.46 co 141 1 0.0175 ~ 1 0.029 1 0.006

I Santa Ana Country Club I 9.94 5.46 I co 141 I 0.0175 CO 029 1 0.006 Residential Area East of Campus Drive c9.94 5.46 1 CO 141 0.0182 0.029 1 x0.006

Sheraton Newport Beach
County Superintendent of Schools
c9.94 5.46 co 141 0.0205 CO 029 0.006
c9.94 5.46 0.141 0.0186 x0.029 0.006

South Terminal ~ I 13 18 664 0.170 0.0388 0.036 0.007
I Fire Station I c9.94 I 5 A6 I x0.141 I 0.0256 1 0.029 co 006 I North Terminal I 11.28 1 614 1 0.141 I 0.0332 1 0.030 1 0.006

I Executive Park I c9.94 I 5.46 I 0.155 1 0.0338 0.034 1 0.007 I Sky Park 7 c9.94 5.46 I 0.141 0.0184 1 co 029 0.006
Federal Standard 35PPm 9.0 ppm N A 10.0534 ppm N A 0.14 ppm l State Standard L 20 PPm 9.0 ppm 0.25 ppm N A 0.25 ppm 0.04 ppm

Source CH2M Hill and LSA Associates Inc 1999 NOTE 1 Includes ambient l hour CO concentration of 7 ppm and l hour CO concentration
reported by EDMS
121 IncIudes ambient 8 hour CO concentration of 4.1 ppm and S hour CO concentration reported by EDMS

PI Includes ambient l hour NO concentration of 0.113 ppm and one tenth of the l hour NOx concentration reported by EDMS
141 Includes ambient AAM NO2 concentration of 0.017 ppm and 75 percent of the annual NOx concentration reported by EDMS
PI Includes ambient l hour SO concentration of 0.019 ppm and l hour SOx concentration reported by EDMS
161 Includes ambient 24 hour SO2 concentration of 0.003 ppm and 24 hour SOX concentration reported by EDMS

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 156
156 Page 157 158
Table 71 2020 Alternative G Pollutant Concentrations JWA Worst Case Operations and Meteorology
lonte Vista High School 1 c10.35 1 6.94 1 0.155 1 0.0174 1 co 035 1 0.003 1
Newport Beach Golf course

anta Ana Country Club
Rsidential Area East of Campus Drive

clO 35 4.94 0.155 0.0184 co 035 0.003
x10.35 4.94 KO 155 0.0188 co 035 0.003
c10.35 c5.94 OS55 0.0203 co 035 0.003
I
heraton Newport Beach

ounty Superintendent of
Schools

c10.35 es 94 co 155 0.0255 co 03 5 0.003
clO 35 c5.94 co 155 0.022 1 co 035 0.003

outh Terminal 1 1732 1 I 10.09 1 co 155 1 0 .0 3 6 7 1 co 035 j 0.004 1
ire Station 7 x10.35 1 c5.94 1 co 155 1 0 .0 3 2 6 1 CO 035 r 0.004 1
rorth Terminal I 10.74 1 7.06 0.158 1 0.0550 1 0.037 1 0.007 1
xecutive Park I 13.15 1 629 1 0.181 1 0.0489 1 0.057 1 0.005 1
ky Park
lid Terminal
ederal Standard tate Standard I

c10.35
11.22
3s PPm 20 PPm

c5.94
6.57
9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm

co 155 0.0196 co 03 5 0.003
co 155 0.0450 0.037 0.003
N A 0.0534 ppm N A 0.14 ppm
0.25 ppm 1 N A 0.25 ppm 0.04 ppm

Source CH2M Hill and LSA Associates Inc 1999 NOTE l Includes ambient l hour CO concentration of 7 ppm and I hour CO concentration
reported by EDMS
PI Includes ambient 8 hour CO concentration of 4.1 ppm and 8 hour CO concentration reported by EDMS

PI Includes ambient l hour NO2 concentration of 0.113 ppm and one tenth of the l hour NOx concentration reported by EDMS
141 Includes ambient AAM NO2 concentration of 0.017 ppm and 75 percent of the annual NOx concentration reported by EDMS
PI Includes ambient l hour SO2 concentration of 0.0 19 ppm and l hour SOX concentration reported by EDMS
WI Includes ambient 24 hour SO2 concentration of 0.003 ppm and 24 hour SOx concentration reported by EDMS
7 Number in bold represents exceedance of standard

County of Orange ETR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 157
157 Page 158 159
158
158 Page 159 160
Pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of the MCAS El Toro site under the Proposed Project
2020 Alternative B would be higher than those under the Existing Conditions 1998 due to higher aircraft activity level at this site under the Proposed Project

Carbon Monoxide CO
The modeling indicates that for CO there would be no exceedance of the State and federal lhour CO standards at any of the receptor locations around both airports For the 8 hour CO

concentrations only Alternative G would have one exceedance projected at the South Terminal at 10.09 ppm State and federal standard is 9 ppm in year 2020 The Proposed Project
Alternative B would not result in any exceedance of the l hour and hour CO standards in 1998 Existing Conditions Plus Proposed Project 2005,2010,2015 and 2020 In general year
2020 Alternative G would result in the highest CO concentrations around John Wayne Airport followed by Alternative F then by Alternative E No Project and the Proposed Project
Alternative B

Nitrogen Dioxide NOx
This section details the results of the EDMS modeling for NO2 emissions Note however that EDMS does not provide results of NO2 concentrations it only provides results for emissions of
all nitrogen oxides NOx The federal and State standards are written specifically in terms of nitrogen dioxide NO2 rather than for the generic group of all nitrogen oxides The EDMS
model does not project concentrations of NOZ it projects concentrations only for NOx In order to determine the quantity of NO2 in the NOx projections generated by the EDMS model
conversion guidelines included in U S EPA CFR Parts 51 and 52 were used for the annual average The guidelines state that for the annual average 75 percent of NOx is NO2 For the one
hour period a ten percent conversion factor was used based on the suggestion by Mr Howard Segal who was one of the creators of the EDMS model This conversion factor is supported by
the U S EPA
There would be no exceedance of the State's l hour NO2 standard at all receptor locations around both airports in 1998 Existing Conditions Plus Proposed Project 2010 and 2020
However there would be one exceedance each of the federal annual arithmetic mean AAM standard 0.0534 ppm for NO2 concentration at Irvine Transportation Center around OCX for
the Existing Conditions Plus Proposed Project 2020 and the Proposed Project Alternative B 2020 and at the North Terminal on John Wayne Airport for Alternative G 2020

The projected exceedance of the federal NO2 AAM standard at the Irvine Transportation Center for the Existing Conditions Plus Proposed Project 2020 scenario is not likely to occur given
the condition that military operations were still in place thereby precluding such occurrence
The projected exceedance at the Irvine Transportation Center mound OCX would not occur until sometime after the year 2015 as can be seen in Table 66 where the NO2 AAM would be 0.0460
ppm at the Irvine Transportation Center in the year 20 10 approximately 14 percent lower than the standard level and in Table 68 where the projected NO2 AAM would be 0.0583 ppm
approximately nine percent above the standard level

County of Orange EIR No 573 150 Air Quality Technical Report 159
159 Page 160 161
Because this projected exceedance in the year 2020 at the Irvine Transportation Center was based on an even split of the use of Runway 34L and Runway 34R for the aircraft take offs to
the north a higher percentage of take offs using Runway 34R which is away Corn the Irvine Transportation Center would help reduce the NO2 concentrations at this closest off airport
sensitive area and would help reduce the local air quality impact to below the threshold levels
The modeling indicates that for NO2 around John Wayne Airport Alternative G has the highest concentrations followed by Alternative F then by Alternative E and Alternative B The reason
that NOa levels are highest for Alternative G is the high number of passenger jet operations large jets typically emit high levels of NOx at John Wayne Airport The Proposed Project
would not result in a significant impact on local NO2 AAM concentration with implementation of proper airport operational procedures on Runway 34R and Runway 34L

Sulfur Oxides SO
There would be no exceedance of the State's l hour SO2 standard and the State and federal 240 hour SO2 standards at any of the receptor locations analyzed around both airports

The modeling indicates that for SO2 Alternative F generates the highest concentrations for all sites around John Wayne Airport followed by Alternative G then by Alternative E and
Alternative B The Proposed Project would not result in any significant impact on local SO2 concentrations

Particula tes
As discussed previously particulate emission rates for aircraft are not available in any approved models to prepare dispersion modeling Although airports are often blamed for particulate
fallout by local residents airports are rarely the source Prior to the mid 1960s particulate emissions from aircraft were completely uncontrolled and visible particulate fallout from aircraft
was a problem For over 20 years the FAA has been regulating the visible particulate emission from aircraft The FAA's requirement is essentially that no visible emissions be emitted fkom
aircraft Diesel trucks and other motor vehicles in most urban areas generate many times more particulate emissions than do the aircraft Often when residents report having soot Corn aircraft
on their patio fixniture it is much more likely that it is fkom the traffic or nearby roadways
The SCAQMD conducted a particulate study around John Wayne Airport Newport Beach Fallout Study JWA January 15 1993 in response to residents complaints The SCAQMD
could not find any significant differences in particulate concentrations for the residents under the departure corridor than residents several miles away The Massachusetts Port Authority
Massport commissioned a program of data collection and analysis of ambient air deposition samples fkom the communities around the Logan Airport and on the airport premises Soot
Deposition Study Logan Airport and Surrounding Communities Massport January 1997 The report concluded that the deposition samples from community sites expected to be affected
by aircraft operations did not differ significantly from the sample at the background site which was not expected to be affected by aircraft The ambient deposition samples did not contain

County of Orange EIR No 573 151 Air Quality Technical Report 160
160 Page 161 162
significant levels of jet fiel soot compared to the engine wipe sample nor did they contain significant evidence of contribution from raw jet fuel Particulate fallout for the project aviation
alternatives are nut anticipated to be a significant impact

6.4 COMPLIANCE WITH AIR QUALITY PLANNING
The following sections address the air quality planning requirement for the Proposed Project under CEQA California Environmental Quality Act and consistency of the project with the

AQMI

6.4.1 Consistency with AQMP
An EIR must discuss any inconsistencies among the Proposed Project and applicable general plans and regional plans CEQA guidelines Section 15 125 Regional plans that apply to the
Proposed Project include the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan AQMP In this regard this section discusses any inconsistencies between the Proposed Project and alternatives
with the 1994 and 1997 AQMPs Because the U S EPA disapproved portions of the 1997 SIP which includes the 1997 AQMP our consistency analysis is based on both 1994 and 1997
AQMPs
The purpose of the consistency discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the project would interfere with
the region's ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards Thus the role of this discussion is to set forth the issue and to relate it to the discussion of environmental impacts If
the decision maker determines that the project is inconsistent the Lead Agency i e the LRA may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency

The SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that New or amended General Plan Elements including land use zoning and density amendments Specific Plans and significant
projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required A Proposed Project should be considered to be consistent
with the plan if it Mers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies The Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency

1 Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely
attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP

2 Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010 or increments based on the year of project build out and phase
Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 161
161 Page 162 163
Criterion 7 Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations
Based on the air quality impact analysis contained in this report it is expected that there will be
short term construction impacts for the Proposed Project and all project alternatives except the No Project Alternative 2020 Alternative E It is unlikely that short term construction activities

will increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations due to required compliance with SCAQMD Rules and Regulations but emissions will be generated in excess of
SCAQMD's threshold criteria
In many instances the worst case assumptions were used for airport related operations For areas under or near the approach and takeoff routes air pollutant concentrations are projected to
be lower than the state and federal ambient air quality standards at most receptor locations There would be one exceedance of the federal NO2 AAM standard around OCX for 2020
Proposed Project Alternative B Plus Existing Conditions 1998 when compared to Existing Conditions 1998 However as described earlier in this report the NO2 AAM exceedance
projected to occur at the Irvine Transportation Center is projected to occur only after year 2015 and this projected exceedance can be avoided if more than half of the aircraft take offs use
Runway 34R Because this impact can be mitigated with airport operational procedures the Proposed Project with implementation of the mitigation would not result in significant local
NO2 impacts
The Proposed Project would not result in CO hot spots at intersections in the project vicinity The Proposed Project in 2020 when added to the Existing Conditions 1998 roadway network
and tr fic conditions would continue to have two intersections in the project vicinity exposed to eight hour CO concentrations exceeding the State and federal standards However these
exceedances are due primarily to high ambient eight hour CO concentrations monitored at the Central Orange County Monitoring Station The Proposed Project would not increase the
frequency or severity of these exceedances In addition as previously stated the Proposed Project would not result in any criteria pollutant hot spot in the project vicinity from aircraft
operations with the implementation of proper airport operational procedures on Runway 34 Therefore the first criterion is met for purposes of consistency with the AQMP

Criterion 2 Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP
Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the project and its alternatives with the assumptions in the AQMP and its parent documents Thus the
emphasis of this criteria is to insure that the analyses conducted for the project alternatives are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP The SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
RCP G contains many of the forecasts upon which the AQMP is based The RCP G consists of three sections Core Chapters Ancillary Chapters and Bridge Chapters The Growth
Management Regional Mobility Air Quality Water Quality and Hazardous Waste Management chapters constitute the Core Chapters of the document These chapters currently
respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG Local governments are
required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 162
162 Page 163 164
The traffic modeling upon which much of the air quality assessment is based uses the OCTAM model which utilizes Orange County growth projections which are consistent with SCAG
growth forecasts to the year 2020 The growth forecasts are consistent with SCAG forecasts and are based in large part on the RCP G Therefore the analysis is consistent with the RCP G
and the AQMP
In addition the aviation forecasts made for this project are consistent with the SCAG demographics e g population housing employment forecasts The forecast made for the
Proposed Project are based on the same demographics as the AQMP and therefore the second criterion is met for consistency with the AQMP

Because both criteria were met for consistency the Proposed Project is considered to be consistent with the AQMP

6.4.2 Conformity with State Implementation Plan SIP
Only projects involving federal action are required to demonstrate conformity with the approved State Implementation Plan SIP Section 176 c of the Clean Air Act provides that a federal
agency or other agency acting on behalf of the federal agency cannot support provide financial assistance for license or permit or approve any action which does not conform to the approved
State Implementation Plan's or Federal Implementation Plan's purpose of eliminating and reducing the severity and number of violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of the standards and not causing or contributing to new NAAQS violations and not increasing the frequency or severity of any existing violations
of any standard
It should be noted that the federal law requires conformity with the SIP not the AQMP The AQMP must be reviewed and approved by the California Air Resources Board ARB and the
U S EPA before it becomes part of the SIP
The Proposed Project will be required to demonstrate general conformity under the Clean Air Act Conformity will be required for all criteria pollutants in which the region is designated as
non attainment or maintenance In accord with the general conformity requirements if a project results in emissions less than the de minimis threshold then the project is presumed to conform
If emissions exceed de minimis the conformity regulations identify several steps that can be undertaken to demonstrate conformity For ozone only if emissions are above the de minimis
threshold then the project is required to offset all emissions in addition to showing that concentrations of the precursor pollutants NOx and ROC are less than the No Project
Alternative This document focuses on meeting the State CEQA requirements General conformity will be addressed in connection with the federal approval process

County of Orange EIR No 573 154 Air Quality Technical Report 163
163 Page 164 165
6.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
6.5.1 Potential Cumulative Impacts Related to Air Quality
6.5.1 .1 Construction Impacts
The Proposed Project is expected to be constructed in four phases lasting approximately 20 years Air pollution has the potential to affect a wide area Ozone precursors ROC and NOx
from construction equipment exhaust and fugitive dust from soil disturbance generated during construction of each of the related projects identified above as well as the Proposed Project will
cumulatively affect the region's air quality The SCAQMD has included the construction emissions within the South Coast Air Basin Basin in its preparation of the emissions inventory
in the regional Air Quality Management Plan AQMP and therefore in its projection of the attainment of these air pollutants Each related project similar to the Proposed Project would be
required to implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the air pollutant emissions However because the South Coast Air Basin is nonattainment in ozone and PM10 cumulative
construction emissions would remain significant and unavoidable

6.5.1.2 Local Air Quality
Although the Basin is nonattainment in federal CO standards concentrations of carbon monoxide CO monitored in Orange County stations have been below the State and federal
standards for the past five years Cumulative traffic volumes including traffic from each of the related projects identified above were used to assess the CO concentrations at most affected
intersections in the project vicinity No exceedance of the State or federal CO standards was identified in future years using the existing background CO concentrations as future background
CO concentrations Anticipated technology improvements would help reduce the vehicular exhaust thereby improving air quality Future background CO concentrations are therefore
expected to be lower than existing levels No exceedance of the State or federal CO standards was found related to aircraft exhaust from the Proposed Project Cumulative local CO hot spot
impacts would be less than significant
Due to the low background concentrations for SOx in Orange County no exceedance of the State and federal SOx standards was found related to the aircraft exhaust The Basin is in attainment
with State and federal SOx standards Cumulative emissions of SOx from each of the related projects would not result in local concentrations of SOx in Orange County to exceed the State or
federal standards
There would be no exceedance of the State's l hour NO2 standard at all receptor locations around both airports However there would be one exceedance of the federal annual arithmetic
mean AAM standard 0.0534 ppm for NO2 concentration at Irvine Transportation Center around OCX for the Proposed Project in Year 2020 The projected exceedance at the Irvine
Transportation Center around OCX would occur after the year 2015 A mitigation measure has been included to reduce this impact to a level below the level of significance Each of the related
projects identified above would result in the emission of NO2 Although it is not anticipated that

County of Orange EIR No 573 155 Air Quality Technical Report 164
164 Page 165 166
NO2 emissions from these related projects would increase the NO2 concentrations around the project sites by a large amount due to the projected exceedance of the NO2 AAM at the Irvine
Transportation Center without mitigation after year 20 15 cumulative NO2 emissions impacts are considered potentially significant Therefore without implementation of feasible mitigation the
Proposed Project could result in significant cumulative adverse impacts on local air quality impacts

6.5.1.3 Regional Air Quality
The SCAQMD has included the operational emissions from all past present and future foreseeable projects within the South Coast Air Basin in its preparation of the emissions
inventory in the regional Air Quality Management Plan AQMP and therefore in its projection of the attainment of these air pollutants Each related project similar to the Proposed Project
would be required to implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the air pollutant emissions

Although the Proposed Project would result in additional air pollutant emissions in the project vicinity when compared to existing conditions 1998 air pollutant emissions in the Basin in
year 2020 are expected to be lower with the implementation of the Proposed Project However because the South Coast Air Basin is nonattainment in State and federal standards for ozone and
PM10 and nonattainment in State CO standards cumulative operational emissions would remain significant and unavoidable

6.6 POTENTIAL PROJECT EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
6.6.1 Potential GSE Emissions Reductions
The U S EPA Office of Mobile Sources released Technical Support for Development of Airport Ground Support Equipment Emissions Reductions EPA420 R 99 007 May 1999 that
includes a report Airport Ground Support Equipment Emissions Report No SR98 12 05 prepared by Sierra Research Inc December 3 1 1998 that provides potential emissions
reduction estimates for airport GSE Information taken from this report represents potential future emissions reductions from airport GSE for the Proposed Project If these technologies are
commercially available before the proposed airport at the MCAS El Toro site is constructed they can be incorporated to reduce the emissions associated with airport GSE At this time there are
no data available regarding the exact number and type of GSE that would be used by the aircraft operating at the project site Therefore the following emissions reduction estimates are based on
the default assumptions included in the GSEMODEL The GSEMODEL is a model included in the Technical Support for Development of Airport Ground Support Equipment Emissions that
can be used to estimate the potential emissions reduction if a certain type of alternative fuel is
used

The majority of conventionally powered GSE can be converted to either LPG or CNG fueling or be replaced with a specially manufactured LPG or CNG powered counterpart The basic issues
surrounding the use of LPG or CNG as a GSE fuel are quite similar Generally non methane

County of Orange EIR No 573 156 Air Quality Technical Report 165
165 Page 166 167
hydrocarbon NMHC CO NOx PM and CO2 emissions from LPG or CNG GSE are all reduced relative to emissions from gasoline powered GSE Relative to diesel GSE emissions of
NOx and PM are reduced emissions of HC and CO are increased and emissions of CO2 can be either slightly increased or decreased depending on equipment size

Similarly the majority of conventionally powered GSE can be either converted to electric power or replaced with specially manufactured electrically powered counterparts Although there is an
increase in offsite power generating station emissions resulting from the increased electrical demand required to recharge electric GSE conversion to electric power or replacement with
electric GSE can be a very effective emission reduction strategy at the airport Even when the increased emissions from power generating stations are considered electric GSE usually emit
significantly less HC CO NOx PM and CO2 emissions than their fossil fueled i e gasoline diesel CNG and LPG counterparts

Potential emissions reductions for airport GSE from using alternative fuels were calculated for both airports based on the projected annual LTO cycles The results are shown in Table 72
In addition while the majority of conventionally powered GSE can be either converted to or replaced by GSE powered by alternative fuels such as LPG CNG or electricity a significant
fraction of GSE can be eliminated entirely by incorporating fixed point of use support equipment such as pre conditioned air into aircraft gate design Such design not only eliminates or
minimizes energy demands associated with moving displaced mobile GSE between aircraft gates and maintenance storage facilities but also facilitates the use of hard wired electrical power
connections thereby eliminating the need for a recharging infrastructure and scheduling plan Although as with electrically powered GSE there is an increase in offsite power generating
station emissions due to the increased demand for electrical power fixed equipment is likely to consume less power than equivalent mobile GSE due to the elimination of the motive aspect of
GSE operation Even when the increased emissions from power generating stations are considered fixed electrically powered support equipment usually emit significantly less HC CO
NOx PM and CO2 emissions than their mobile fossil fueled counterparts
Additional operational procedures could be used to minimize ground operation and fuel consumption However these operational procedures are at the pilot's discretion depending on
safety factors Such procedures would include using tugs to push aircraft away from the gate not allowing aircraft to start engines until necessary for pre flight procedures prior to take off
and the use of reduced engine s for taxiing
It should be noted that the emissions calculated by the GSEMODEL assume that all aircraft will use the default GSE assigned in the model Except for baggage tugs that use gasoline as default
fuel all other GSE use diesel as default fuel
Table 72 shows the potential GSE emissions reductions at both airports GSE emissions were calculated based on annual landing and takeoff LTO cycles projected at the project sites for the
year 2020 Alternative B scenario Individual GSE emissions reduction for each type of alternative fuel is included in Appendix F F Table 72 shows the total emissions reductions or
increase if a negative number is shown based on the assumption that the entire GSE fleet would

County of Orange EIR No 573 157 Air Quality Technical Report 166
166 Page 167 168
be using the same fuel type It is shown that electric powered GSE would have the greatest emissions reduction for all pollutants Gasoline would reduce the NOx and PM10 emissions but
would increase the emissions of CO and HC ROC relative to default emissions Both liquid petroleum gas LPG and compressed natural gas CNG would reduce emissions of NOx
HC ROC and PM10 but would increase the CO emissions compared to the default diesel fuel
Table 72 Potential GSE Emissions Reductions Pounds Day

rr CQ
OCX Diesel 29,490 Gas 50,156

LPG 19,262 I CNG 19,262
Electric 30,668 JWA Diesel 8,984
Gas 13,592

LPG 4,833 CNG 4,833
r Electric 9,327

lmx HCIROC p JfM 591f 482 NA 66
1,411 -653 NA 129 1,666 91 NA
130 1,666 333 NA 130

2,330 805 NA 132
180 147 NA -20
400 173 NA 36
472 3 7 NA 3s 472
106 NA 3 6 660 241
NA 3 7 i -771 1 629 NA 86 Total Diesel 3 8,474

I Gas 63,748 1,811 -826 NA 165 1 I LPG 24,095 2,138 128 NA 165
CNG 24,095 2,138 439 NA 166 Electric
39,995 2,990 1,046 NA 169

NOTE l Emissions calculated based on annual LTO operations with GSEMODEL The GSEMODEL assumes a11 default GSE would be used for all aircraft Emissions reduction assumes all GSE would use the

same type of fuel as shown Emissions reduction for individual GSE is included in Appendix G 2
Gas is the default Abel type for baggage tugs 3 A negative number represents there is an emission increase compared to the default fuel

4 Not Available The GSEMODEL does not provide emissions for SOx
5 Liquid Petroleum gas fueled engines
6 Compressed natural gas fueled engines

The Proposed Project is projected to have increases of criteria pollutants exceeding the SCAQMD established operational thresholds for the criteria pollutants of CO NOx and ROC
Therefore emissions reduction measures will be considered for all criteria pollutants Utilizing electric powered GSE and providing electrical power outlets for electric ramp vehicles and for
battery charging of GSE and providing pre conditioned air at every gate would provide the highest amount of emissions reductions for all criteria pollutants

Based on the GSEMODEL results if all GSE is converted to electric powered from the default diesel fuel 98.8 percent of the hydrocarbon HC emissions 99.9 percent of the carbon
monoxide CO emissions 95.6 percent of nitrogen oxides NOx and particulates PM would be eliminated

County of Orange EIR No 573 158 Air Quality Technical Report 167
167 Page 168 169
If compressed natural gas CNG powered GSE is used in lieu of the default diesel fuel 40.8
percent of HC 68.4 percent of NO and 94.5 percent of PM emissions can be eliminated However the CO emissions would increase by 62.8 percent from the default level

Therefore the following potential emissions reductions shown in Table 73 can be achieved with combination of the default fuel and alternative fuels

Table 73 Potential 2020 Proposed Project Alternative B GSE Emissions Reductions
Pounds Day
SOx 1 PM 90 percent electric powered and 10 17,799 1,871 540 42 70

percent default fuel GSE 50 percent electric powered and 50 9,800 1,040 300 23 3 9
percent default fuel GSE 50 percent electric powered and 50 3,584 1,784 424 40 78
percent CNG powered GSE 1 50 percent CNG powered and 50 6,216L 744 124 17 39
percent default tieI GSE 100 percent CNG powered GSE I -12,432 I 1,488 I 248
l 34 I 77 I
Source LSA Associates Inc 1999 NOTE l Use the reduction factor as NOx

2 Negative values represent increases in emissions

6.6.2 Potential Emissions Reductions From Fueling
Facilities

As described earlier the Proposed Project is designed to have a hydrant fueling system a vapor
recovery system and floating roof fuel tanks Therefore little or no hydrocarbon emissions would be anticipated Therefore the emissions listed in Table 26 from fuel storage and

dispensing operations would be eliminated For the Proposed Project Alternative B in year 2020 this represents a reduction

6.7 SUMMARY
6.7.1 Short Term

of the ROC emissions by 95 pounds per day
OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Construction Air Quality Impacts
The Proposed Project would result in temporary significant and unavoidable construction air
quality impacts Most criteria pollutant emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD for construction would be exceeded during the project's peak construction years second through

fourth years in a five year period for each of the four phases except SO NO emission thresholds 100 pounds per day would be exceeded most of the time except the fifth year of
each construction phase PM10 emissions threshold would be exceeded most of the time when

County of Orange EIR No 573 158 Air Quality Technical Report 168
168 Page 169 170
emissions fkom equipment exhaust combined with fugitive dust generated by grading or soil disturbance Emissions of CO and ROC would exceed the emissions thresholds during the
project's peak construction years but would be below the emissions thresholds during off peak years

6.7.2 Local Air Quality Impacts
The Proposed Project would not result in CO hot spots at intersections in the project vicinity The Proposed Project in 2020 when added to the Existing Conditions 1998 roadway network
and traffic conditions would continue to have two intersections in the project vicinity exposed to eight hour CO concentrations exceeding the State and federal standards However this
exceedance is due primarily to high ambient eight hour CO concentrations monitored at the Central Orange County Monitoring Station The existing exceedance would no longer occur
after the year 2005 as was shown in the CO hot spot analysis for the Proposed Project in 2005 2010,2015 and 2020 The Proposed Project would not increase the frequency or severity of the
exceedance
There would be no exceedance of the State's l hour NO2 standard at all receptor locations around both airports However there would be one exceedance of the federal annu l arithmetic
mean AAM standard 0.0534 ppm for NO concentration at Irvine Transportation Center around OCX for the Proposed Project Alternative B 2020

The projected exceedance at the Irvine Transportation Center around OCX would not occur until sometime after the year 2015 as can be seen in Table 66 where the NO2 AAM would be 0.0460
ppm at the Irvine Transportation Center in the year 2010 approximately 14 percent lower than the standard level and in Table 66 where the projected NO2 AAM would be 0.0583 ppm
approximately nine percent above the standard level
Because this projected exceedance in the year 2020 at the Irvine Transportation Center was based on an even split of the use of Runway 34L and Runway 34R for the aircr take offs to
the north a higher percentage of take offs using Runway 34R which is away from the Irvine Transportation Center would help reduce the NO2 concentrations at this closest off airport
sensitive area and would help reduce the local air quality impact to below the threshold levels

6.7.3 Regional Air Quality Impacts
The Proposed Project Plus Existing Conditions 1998 would result in increases in criteria pollutants when compared to Existing Conditions 1998 on a regional basis Specifi c'ally there
would be an increase in emissions of CO NOx and ROC under the Existing Plus Proposed Project Alternative B scenario compared to the Existing Conditions 1998 scenario which
would exceed the SCAQMD established emissions thresholds for operation Emissions of the PM10 under the Proposed Project 2020 would increase slightly over the Existing Conditions
1998 scenario Therefore the Proposed Project would result in significant air quality impacts
This approach however does not take into account a number of significant factors relevant to the assessment of air quality impacts that may reduce emissions levels in the firture including

County of Change EIR No 573 160 Air Quality Technical Report 169
169 Page 170 171
aat pollu t sowces creating the existing emissions will become steadily cleaner over the yeas
that motor vehicles operating in 20 years will be substantially cleaner than today's vehicles ami
that industrial sources will continue to be regulated and continue to become cleaner as less polluting technologies continue to become available that replace today's technology

Additionally this approach overlooks studies conducted by among others SCAG which conclude that the regional air travel demand could be met whether a commercial airport is
constructed at MCAS El Toro or not and on that basis it is incorrect to assume that the Proposed Project will add substantial emissions attributable to aircraft operations to the region

Circumstances relevant to a federally deregulated aviation industry and titure economic development in Southern California also clearly indicate that the aviation industry will provide
service to meet foreseeable demand regardless of inconvenience levels so long as such service is profitable The question in Southern California is not whether future airline service will be
provided to meet demand but where Runway capacity at locations remote from current or future population centers is available but the consequence of using those facilities is increased
drive time and VMT and resulting emissions More conveniently located facilities such as LAX Burbank or San Diego can certainly handle increasing passenger demand levels but at a
cost of increased congestion and passenger inconvenience For Orange County passengers of course LAX Burbank and other such existing facilities are relatively remote and require
additional VMT to reach But there is no substantial or credible evidence or experience in Southern California to support a conclusion that the airlines will simply fail to provide service
sufficient to meet demand in a fully deregulated environment

6.7.4 Summary
The Proposed Project would result in significant air quality impacts during construction and significant local and regional emissions during operation of the proposed facility when compared
to Existing Conditions 1998 Mitigation measures designed to reduce construction local and regional project related emissions would be required

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 170
170 Page 171 172
7.1
7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
FINAL EIR NO 563 MITIGATION MEASURES
The mitigation measures below were recommended for adoption in EIR No 563 to minimize the air quality impacts in connection with implementation of the CRP In this subsection these
measures are reviewed in terms of their relationship to the Proposed Project and the current status of the measure is described in italic text

AQ 1 Prior to adoption of a construction level plan for the MCAS El Toro site the County
of Orange will include mitigation measures related to construction based on the recommendations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District

Relationship to DEIR No 573 This measure has been updated to reflect the current stage of planning As revised the measure is replaced by Mitigation Measure AQ 11
AQ 2 The County of Orange will identify as necessary the need for a Transportation
Demand Management TDM program for the MCAS El Toro site as part of the construction level environmental documentation for the project

Relationship tu DEIR No 573 This measure has been updated tu reflect the current stage of planning As revised the measure is replaced by Mitigation Measure AQ 12
AQ 3 In order to maintain consistency with the 1994 AQMP the County of Orange will
ensure that construction level environmental documentation for the project incorporates the appropriate mitigation measures identified in the 1994 AQMP that

are applicable to airports
Relationship to DEIR No 573 This measure has been updated tu reflect the current stage of planning As revised the measure is replaced by Mitigation Measure AQ 13

AQ 4 The County of Orange will conduct additional traffic studies concurrently with
construction level environmental documentation to determine how to improve the capacity and minimize congestion at the intersection of Bake Parkway and Trabuco

Road If additional intersections are found in these detailed traffic studies to be adversely impacted additional analysis to improve those intersections will also be
conducted
Relationship to DEIR No 573 The methudulugy and Jindings of this DEIR No 573 transportation and circulation study Jirl ll the requirements of Mitigation Measure AQ 4
Therefore Mitigation Measure AQ 4 is no lunger applicable
AQ 5 During design of the aviation uses on the site the County of Orange will consider including electrical power outlets for landside passenger shuttles including
incorporation of electrical power outlets in the terminal and parking lot design to accommodate electric shuttle vehicles This would include providing electrical outlets

County of Orange EIR No 573 1 6 2 Air Quality Technical Report 171
171 Page 172 173
for battery charging for passenger shuttles that serve hotels rental car agencies and other businesses
Relationship to DEIR No 573 This measure has been updated tu reflect the current stage of planning As revised the measure is replaced by Mitigation Measure AQ I 4
AQ 6 During design of the aviation uses on the site the County of Orange will consider encouraging the use of alternative fuel vehicles powered by natural gas propane
and or other alternative fkels and providing fuel storage facilities for these alternative hels

Relationship tu DEIR No 573 This measure has been updated tu reflect the current stage of planning As revised the measure is replaced by Mitigation Measure AQ 15
AQ 7 During the preparation of construction level environmental documentation for the project the County of Orange or the airport operator will require that plans and
procedures be prepared that includes the requirement for final design studies to minimize taxi in and taxi out times and reduce aircraft queuing times These may
include but are not limited to design features and specific operations procedures
Relationship tu DEIR No 573 This measure has been updated tu reflect the current stage of planning As revised the measure is replaced by Mitigation Measure AQ I 6

AQ 8 During design of the aviation uses on the site the County of Orange will consider including electrical power and preconditioned air in the design of the terminal gates
jetways to reduce emissions from operating aircraft engines at the gates
Relationship tu DEIR No 573 This measure has been updated tu reflect the current stage of planning As revised the measure is replaced by Mitigation Measure AQ I 7

AQ 9 During design of the aviation uses on the site the County of Orange will consider including electrical power outlets for electric ramp vehicles and for battery charging
for ground support equipment
Relationship to DEIR No 573 This measure has been updated tu reflect the current stage of planning As revised the measure is replaced by Mitigation Measure AQ 18

AQ 10 During design of the aviation uses on the site the County of Orange will consider incorporating hydrant fkeling systems for commercial jet aircraft operations
Relationship to DEIR No 573 This measure has been updated to reflect the current stage of planning As revised the measure is replaced by Mitigatiun Measure AQ 19

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 172
172 Page 173 174
7.1 I Construction Emissions
AQ 11 During construction of the Proposed Project the County of Orange and its contractors will be required to comply with regional rules which would assist in reducing shortterm

air pollutant emissions The SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures so that the presence of such dust
does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source In addition SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression
techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site These dust suppression techniques are summarized below Implementation of these dust
suppression techniques as required by the SCAQMD can reduce the fugitive dust generation and thus the PM10 component by 50 to 75 percent

Dust SuDpression
Apply non toxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers specifications to all inactive construction areas previously graded areas inactive
for ten days or more

Revegetate in disturbed areas as quickly as possible
Enclose cover water twice daily or apply non toxic soil binders according to manufacturers specifications to exposed stock piles i e gravel sand dirt with
five percent or greater silt content
Water active sites at least twice daily
Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds as instantaneous gusts exceed 25 mph

All trucks hauling dirt sand soil or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements
of CVC section 23 114 freeboard means vertical space between the top of the
load and top of the trailer

Sweep streets once a day if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent stieets recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water

Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip
Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from main road

County of Orange EIRNo 573 164 Air Quality Technical Report 173
173 Page 174 175
l Apply water three times daily or
manufacturers specifications to all road surfaces

Trafk speeds on all unpaved roads to be reduced to 15 mph or less
Vehicle and Equipment Exhaust

apply non toxic soil stabilizers according to unpaved parking or staging areas or unpaved

The following measures are provided to reduce air pollutants and equipment exhaust during the project construction phases generated by vehicle
l Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference
l Provide temporary traffic control during all phases of construction activities to
improve t Tic flow e g flagperson

l Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow to off peak hours e g
between 7 00 p m and 6 00 a m and between 10 00 a m and 3 00 p m

l Develop a construction traffic management plan that includes but is not limited
to l I Rerouting construction trucks off congested streets

I Consolidating truck deliveries I
Providing dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on site and off site

l Methanol tieled pile drivers
l Suspend use of all construction equipment operations during second stage smog
alerts For daily forecast call 800 242 4022 Los Angeles and Orange counties or 800 367 4710 San Bernardino and Riverside counties

l Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel power generators
whenever feasible

l Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary gasoline power generators
whenever feasible

l Encourage use of methanol or natural gas on site mobile equipment instead of
diesel

l Encourage use of propane or butane powered on site mobile equipment instead of
gasoline

l Include bicycle parking facilities such as bicycle lockers and racks

County of Orange EIR No 573 165 Air Quality Technical Report 174
174 Page 175 176
l Include showers for pedestrian and bicycling employees use
l Provide shuttles to major rail transit stations and multi modal centers
l Use solar or low emission water heaters

l Use central water heating systems
Architectural Coating
l The Construction Contractor shall utilize as much as possible precoatecl natural
colored building materials water based or low VOC coating and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency such as high volume low

pressure HVLP spray method or manual coatings application such as paint brush hand roller trowel spatula dauber rag or sponge

Asbestos Removal
l The construction contractor shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403 Asbestos
Emissions from Demolition Removal Activities during the demolition or renovation of asbestos containing buildings and structures

7.1.2 Regional Emissions
The significant effects identified would be mitigated by the following feasible mitigation measures

AQ 12 Consistent with Mitigation Measure T 3 in Section 4.3 of EIR No 573 prior to issuing any building permits the Director of the Public Facilities and Resources
Department will prepare a Transportation Demand Management TDM Plan for the MCAS El Toro site pursuant to the County Transportation Demand Management
Ordinance
AQ 13 The County of Orange will incorporate the appropriate mitigation measures applicable to airports identified in the 1994 and 1997 AQMPs The 1997 AQMP
contains one Off Road Mobile Source Control Measure for aircraft 1997 AQMP Number Ml 5 Ml 5 is U S EPA adoption of nationwide emission standards for new
aircraft engines The focus of Ml5 is on the U S EPA since the federal government has sole authority over these emission sources Ml 5 is a mitigation measure that is to
be implemented by others Other AQMP mitigation measures applicable to the nonaircraft portion of an airport are included in the mitigation measures

AQ 14 The County of Orange will include electrical power outlets for landside passenger shuttles including incorporation of electrical power outlets in the terminal and
parking lot designed to accommodate electric shuttle vehicles no later than the opening of the new terminal contemplated to occur at the end of Phase 1 This would

County of Orange EIR No 573 166 Air Quality Technical Report 175
175 Page 176 177
AQ 15
AQ 16
AQ 17

AQ 18
AQ 19

include providing electrical outlets for battery charging for passenger shuttles that serve hotels rental car agencies and other businesses associated with airport
operations
The County of Orange will incorporate the following mitigation measures applicable to alternative fuels

a

b
C
4

For airport owned and operated directly or by contract vehicles the County will encourage a phased program to replace its fleet of airport support vehicles with
readily commercial available vehicles that use alternative fLels and electric power The County will design the necessary infiwtructure to tie1 these vehicles

For third party vehicles such as shuttles the County will provide all reasonably necessary facilities to encourage and facilitate such services in incorporating
alternative fbels These facilities will be provided no later than the opening of the new terminal contemplated to occur at the end of Phase 1

Preferential parking will be provided for alternative fuel vehicles in connection with all phases of the Proposed Project sufficient to provide continuing
encouragement in their use
The County will include in its bid proposals for taxicab services in connection with operations in all phases of the Proposed Project a provision that requires the
use of alternative tie1 vehicles at the airport
Final design will maintain the ASMP features to minimize taxi in and taxi out times and reduce aircraft queuing times These features incorporate airfield and terminal
design and location of the terminal selected to facilitate ready access to the airfield
The County of Orange will include electrical power and preconditioned air in the design and construction of the OCX terminal gates jetways to reduce emissions
from operating aircraft engines at the gates These facilities allow airlines to avoid emissions associated with running the aircraft's auxiliary power unit while it is
parked at the gate
The County of Orange will include electrical power outlets at OCX for electric ramp vehicles for battery charging for ground support equipment The facilities will allow
the airlines to convert their GSE to clean fuels The facilities will be provided no later than the opening of the new terminal contemplated to occur at the end of Phase
1
The County of Orange will incorporate hydrant fueling systems for commercial jet aircr operations at OCX In addition all new tieI handling and storage facilities
will comply with the latest emission reduction regulations These facilities will be provided consistent with the contemplated phasing of these facilities

County of Change EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 176
176 Page 177 178
AQ 20 The County will advise tenant airlines in writing that the County supports the use of single or reduced engine taxiing to the extent that it would provide identifiable air
quality benefits to the local community and the region and if and to the extent that it is determined by the FAA and the airlines to be a safe and efficient operational
procedure for air carrier aircraft at OCX and JWA

7.1.3 Local Pollutant Concentrations
AQ 21 The County of Orange will use its best efforts in cooperation with airport users and FAA to achieve a percentage of Runway 34 departures that would be sufficiently
greater than 50 percent of such departures occurring on Runway 34R fkom and after the end of Phase 2 of the project after the year 2010 to result in an annual arithmetic
mean AAM NO2 value at the Irvine Transportation Center less than 0.0534 ppm This mitigation measure is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the FAA and
the FAA can and should approve this measure

7.2 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure HM 2 in Section 4.16 of EIR No 573 Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials Use addresses compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 Asbestos Emissions From
Demolition Renovation Activities during the project construction period
Additional mitigation measures were also identified for this air quality analysis that were not considered applicable at the time EIR No 563 was prepared All of these mitigation measures
will be implemented no later than the opening of the new terminal contemplated to occur at the end of Phase 1 unless otherwise specified

AQ 22 The County of Orange will implement a program at the Proposed Project for the use or conversion of at least 90 percent of ground support equipment GSE to electric
powered by the year 2010
AQ 23 The County of Orange will provide fkee shuttles from the Airport Transportation Center to the terminal no later than the opening of the new terminal contemplated at
the end of Phase 1
AQ 24 The County of Orange will install a monitoring system to control airport shuttles at ocx

AQ 25 The County of Orange will use lighting controls and energy efficient lighting at OCX in the construction of airport facilities
AQ 26 The County of Orange will use energy efficient low sodium parking lot lights at ocx
AQ 27 The County of Orange will use energy efficient and automated controls for air conditioners at OCX
County of Orange EIR No 573 168 Air Quality Technical Report 177
177 Page 178 179
AQ 28
AQ 29
AQ 30
AQ 3 1

7.3

The County of Orange will provide preferential parking spaces for carpools and vanpools and provide 7'2 minimum vertical clearance in parking facilities for
vanpool access at OCX
The County of Orange will implement on site circulation plan in parking lots to reduce vehicle queuing at OCX

The County of Orange will provide for on site employee services such as food service financial services etc at OCX
The County of Orange will construct on site bus turnouts and passenger shelters at ocx

MITIGATION MEASURES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED
Certain mitigation measures were evaluated but are not proposed for inclusion in the project These measures and the reasons they are not proposed for adoption or inclusion in the project
are listed below

9 Reduced use of reverse thrust can reduce emissions during the brief period typically 15 seconds when pilots may use the engines to slow the aircraft upon arrival Reverse
thrust is not used to slow every aircraft upon arrival Reverse thrust is normally used to reduce aircraft time on the active runway tier landing and to reduce maintenance costs

incurred with brake repair and replacement Use of reverse thrust by pilots depends upon several factors including the length of runway available for stopping an aircraft runway
conditions air traffic or ground control instructions winds aircraft type width and speed return taxiway condition and congestion proximity of aircraft following on final
approach or many other possible operational considerations This strategy has a direct relationship to the safe operation of an aircraft on the runways and for this reason the
use of reverse thrust must be within the discretion of the pilot in command Due to concerns over safety insufficient potential emission reductions and the need for pilot
discretion this strategy is considered infeasible
ii Taking passengers to aircraft could reduce aircraft emissions by reducing time spent in taxi idle mode by placing the aircraft closer to the runways However the proximity of
the terminals to the runways indicate that this particular strategy would have kinimal if any benefit at JWA and OCX This strategy is not reasonable or feasible for
implementation at OCX or JWA
iii Fleet modernization might reduce fleet average emissions of a particular pollutant This strategy would entail replacing older aircraft engines with aircraft engine types that
are designed to emit lower emissions of a specific pollutant To date consideration of emissions fkom aircraft has focused on reducing NOx emissions which increased during
the last decade with the increasing prominence of the high bypass ratio engine which
County of Orange EIR No 573 Hi9 Air Quality Technical Report 178
178 Page 179 180
provides significant noise reduction The high bypass ratio engines resulted in substantial emission reductions in CO and ROG but resulted in substantial increases in NOx
In the long term the aviation industry and the federal government will continue to search for better te chnology to reduce emissions air and noise from aircraft engines Over the
last two decades engine manufacturers and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA research and development programs have significantly reduced
jet engine emissions NASA has ongoing research that has as its goal the development of technology that will reduce emissions of future aircraft by a factor of three within 10
years and by a factor of five within 25 years However these programs have been the subject of recent Congressional budget cuts As a result implementation of such
technology when available will take decades As a result fleet modernization represents mitigation that may occur at the later part of the horizon for this project but it is not
viable in providing substantial reductions in emissions before 2020 In addition such actions are beyond the control of the airport operator as aircraft engine emissions are
regulated by the federal government

1 iv Derated takeoffs have the potential to reduce NOx emissions Corn aircraft by reducing engine thrust throttle settings from the design maximum to the minimum safe level
necessary given the aircraft weight and atmospheric conditions Lower throttle settings result in lower NOx emissions Derated takeoffs are an operational measure that the

County has no legal authority to impose In addition this measure would conflict with procedures established to reduce noise impacts on nearby communities and could result
in an increase in noise impacts because aircraft would be flying at lower altitudes in the vicinity of some residential neighborhoods

The FAA Advisory Circular No 25 13 and No 91 53A describe the requirements that must be met when using reduced power for takeoff The FAA emphasizes in these
Advisory Circulars that the ultimate decision to employ this procedure must rest with the pilot in command Again local regulation of aircraft operational procedures is clearly
preempted by federal law and this is not a reasonable or feasible mitigation measure

0 V Using larger aircraft in place of multiple flights on the theory that the number of aircraft serving an airport would necessarily be reduced is not feasible This measure
would conflict with the provisions of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 and the Stage 2 aircraft phase out schedule set forth in

14 CFR Part 91 In addition wide body aircraft must be dedicated to longer i e transcontinental and international routes because of the range limitations of smaller jets
Airline fleet decisions in the acquisition of aircraft that typically cost from 25 million to lOO million are dictated by factors and airline considerations that make this measure
impractical Generally it is not feasible for individual local airport operators to mandate fleet structure decisions on the commercial airlines as would inevitably be required by
such a mitigation measure
vi The parking facilities proposed in the Proposed Project are part of the project description were formulated according to professional airport planning standards and were set to

County of Orange EIR No 573 170 Air Quality Technical Report 179
179 Page 180 181
meet anticipated demand Additional discussion on the parking analysis is contained in the Draft EIR
The County will adopt a TDM program to reduce the number of automobile trips to the airport and will encourage the use of other transit alternatives However the County will
not commit to a specific TDM element regulating parking pricing or offering cash out policies to discourage automobile access Discouraging public parking may result in
encouraging air passengers to use another airport which would conflict with the objectives of the Proposed Project as well as increase traffic and air quality impacts on a
regional level A failure to provide sufficient parking facilities and or increasing parking fees may result in an increase in the number of passengers that are dropped off and
picked up at the airport This could result in a significant increase in the number of vehicles traveling to and from the airport thereby potentially increasing the traffic and
air quality impacts of the project

7.4 POTENTIAL PROJECT EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MITIGATION

MEASURES
7.4.1 Construction Emissions
Application of the AQ 11 mitigation measure would reduce both fugitive dust PMlo and equipment exhaust Implementation of AQ 11 would reduce figitive dust emissions shown in
Table 22 by a minimum of 50 percent Implementation of the AQ 11 is also expected to reduce construction equipment emissions shown in Table 21 by more than five percent Even with
implementation of these mitigation measures this impact would remain significant and unavoidable

7.4.2 Regional Emissions
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ 17 AQ 18 and AQ 22 would use electric powered or other alternative fuel GSE As shown in Table 74 an estimated amount of 17,799 pounds per
day ppd of CO 1,871 ppd NOx 540 ppd ROC 42 ppd SOx and 70 ppd PM10 would be
reduced when these mitigation measures are implemented

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ 19 would reduce 95 ppd of ROC by airport fueling
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ 23 AQ 24 and AQ 3 1 would reduce emissions associated with airport passenger trips by 65 ppd CO 16 ppd NOx 7 ppd ROC and 4 ppd of

PMlO
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ 28 and AQ 30 would reduce emissions associated with employee trips by 7 ppd CO 2 ppd NOx and 1 ppd of ROC

County of Orange EIR No 573 In Air Quality Technical Report 180
180 Page 181 182
Table 74 Potential Project Emissions Reductions Pounds Per Day Unless Noted
A l 1 50 percent
shown in Table 22

AQ I 7 AQ 17,799 1,871 540 42 70
18 AND AQ22

AQ 19 AQ 23 AQ24
and AQ31
AQ 28 and
AQ 30 AQ 25 AQ26

and AQ27
Total

95 65 16 7 NA 4
7 2 1 NA Ia
1 7 I NA II

17,872 I 1,896 643 42 74
Source LSA Associates Inc 1999

County of Orange EIR No 573 Air Quality Technical Report 181
181 Page 182 183
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ 25 AQ 26 and AQ 27 would reduce emissions associated with energy consumption by 1 ppd CO and 7 ppd of NOX
Quantification of the emissions reduction associated with Mitigation Measures AQ 12 AQ 13
AQ 14 AQ 15 AQ 16 AQ 20 AQ 26 and AQ 29 is not feasible at this time

In addition to these identified mitigation measures rules and regulations have been included in the 1994 AQMP 1997 AQMP SIP and related planning documents which will result in titure
emissions reductions in the region These emissions reductions will result from among others motor vehicles becoming steadily cleaner in titure years thereby offsetting the increase in future
tra volumes and industrial pollutant sources continuing to become cleaner as less polluting technologies continue to become available that replace today's more polluting technologies In
effect mitigating rules regulations and programs and foreseeable technology improvements which will be implemented by agencies other than the County including SCAQMD ARB and
EPA over the next 10 the Proposed Project to 20 years will reduce future pollutant levels in the Basin with or without

With implementation of mitigation measures required in or incorporated into the project and measures and adopted plans and policies that are within the responsibility
SCAQMD ARB EPA and other public agencies the significant regional will be mitigated to below the level of significance and jurisdiction of air quality impacts

7.4.3 Local Concentrations
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ 21 would reduce pollutant concentrations at the nearest off airport sensitive area the Irvine Transportation Center The reduction of NOx
emissions from Runway 34L departures would avoid the projected exceedance of NO after year 20 15 This mitigation measure is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the FAA and the
FAA can and should adopt and approve this measure With implementation of this mitigation the Proposed Project's significant local air quality impacts would be mitigated to a level below
the level of significance