draft air quality analysis technical report of hampton roads crossing study feis: cba 9 –segments...

State Project: 0064-114-F12, PE-102 UPC: 99587 From: I-664/Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel in Hampton Roads, VA

To: I-564 at Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk, VA and to Route 164 in Portsmouth, VA

Michael Baker Jr., Inc.

November 2011

Reevaluation of Hampton Roads Crossing Study: Selected Alternative CBA 9 - Segment 1 & Segment 3

DRAFT Air Quality Analysis Technical Report

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Page i November 2, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Build Alternative ................................................................................................................. 2 2.1.1 CBA 9 - Segment 1 .................................................................................................. 2 2.1.2 CBA 9 – Segment 3 ................................................................................................. 2 2.1.3 New Points of Access ............................................................................................. 4 2.1.4 Roadway Design ..................................................................................................... 5 2.1.5 Tunnel Design Components ................................................................................... 5 2.1.6 Island Design Components .................................................................................... 7

2.2 No-Build Alternative ........................................................................................................... 7 3. Traffic Summary ............................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 Existing and Future Traffic .................................................................................................. 8 3.2 Truck Traffic ........................................................................................................................ 8

4. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 8 5. Regulatory Standards/Criteria ......................................................................................................... 8 6. Conformity ..................................................................................................................................... 13 7. Operational Emissions Analysis ..................................................................................................... 13

7.1 Carbon Monoxide ............................................................................................................. 13 7.2 Particulate Matter ............................................................................................................. 19 7.3 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) ...................................................................................... 19 7.4 Tunnel Assessment ........................................................................................................... 25

7.4.1 Peak-Hour Traffic Condition ................................................................................ 26 7.4.2 Incident (Idling Vehicles) Condition ..................................................................... 27

8. Construction Emission Analysis ..................................................................................................... 30 9. Mitigation ....................................................................................................................................... 30 10. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 30

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location Map .................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Typical Sections of Optional Tunnel Designs ................................................................................ 6 Figure 3: Air Quality Receptors - Cedar Lane Interchange ......................................................................... 15 Figure 4: Air Quality Receptor - Churchland High School .......................................................................... 16 Figure 5: Air Quality Receptors - Segment 3 / VA 164 Interchange (New) ................................................ 17 Figure 6: National MSAT Emission Trends 1999 - 2050 ............................................................................. 20

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Base Year 2010 volumes................................................................................................................. 9 Table 2: Interim Year 2018 and Design Year 2034 No-Build and Build volumes ......................................... 9 Table 3: Truck Percentages for 2018 and 2034 .......................................................................................... 10 Table 4: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) ....................................................................... 11 Table 5: CAL3QHC Input Parameters ......................................................................................................... 18 Table 6: Total CO Concentrations .............................................................................................................. 18

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Page ii November 2, 2011

Table 7: Maximum Allowable Concentrations in New Tunnels for Peak-Hour Traffic .............................. 26 Table 8: Key Inputs for Peak-Hour Traffic Calculations .............................................................................. 27 Table 9: CBA 9 – Segment 1 Tunnel Air Quality Analysis ........................................................................... 28 Table 10: CBA 9 – Key Inputs for Idling Traffic Calculations....................................................................... 29

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Page 1 November 2, 2011

AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION This Technical Report summarizes the methods used for the air quality project-level analysis reevaluation of the Hampton Roads Crossing Study (HRCS) selected alternative, Candidate Build Alternative 9 (CBA 9), Segments 1 & 3. The analysis and report were prepared in accordance with all applicable Federal and State regulations and guidance. This report provides a stand-alone, comprehensive documentation of the qualitative or quantitative (as appropriate) CO, PM2.5 and/or MSAT air analysis and serves as a support document to the Environmental Assessment (EA) being prepared for the project. In accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related regulations, the results of the overall project reevaluation will be documented in an EA.

Air quality is defined by ambient atmospheric concentrations of specific pollutants determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be of concern with respect to human health and welfare. To illustrate the potential effect of the project on air quality, a quantitative analysis of carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations was conducted using computerized emissions and dispersion models. CO is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas considered to be a threat to those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. Concentrations of CO tend to be higher in areas of high traffic volumes or areas adjacent to stationary sources of the pollutant. CO emissions are associated with the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles and are considered to be a good indicator of vehicle-induced air pollution. In addition, a fine particulate matter (PM2.5) analysis and Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) analysis have been conducted in accordance with regulations and guidance from EPA and FHWA. The project was found to not be one of air quality concern for PM2.5, and one with low potential MSAT effects. The detailed findings of the analyses are presented in this report.

Air quality also is addressed on a regional scale by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and at a statewide level in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). For regions designated by EPA as maintenance areas, such as the Hampton Roads area for the 8-hour ozone standard, MPOs conduct conformity analyses to ensure that transportation plans and programs proposed for funding conform to the SIP for attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The status of the project in the applicable conforming regional financially constrained long-range transportation plans also is included in this report.

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are reevaluating the Hampton Roads Crossing Study (HRCS) Environmental Impact Statement. The selected Build Alternative is referred to as Candidate Build Alternative 9 (CBA 9) and is made up of five independent segments. As stated in the 2001 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the selected Build Alternative can be constructed in segments with each segment contributing to project purpose

Reevaluation of Hampton Roads Crossing Study FEIS: CBA 9 – Segments 1 & 3 Air Quality Analysis Technical Report


and need and each segment having logical termini and independent utility.1

Figure 1

For this project, VDOT is reevaluating two segments of the selected Build Alternative, as described below and illustrated in

, as well as the No-Build Alternative. CBA 9 – Segments 1 and 3 is locally referred to as Patriot’s Crossing.

2.1 BUILD ALTERNATIVE

For the Build Alternative, the segments being reevaluated consist of CBA 9 - Segment 1 and Segment 3 for a combined length of 15 miles.

2.1.1 CBA 9 - SEGMENT 1 Segment 1 would be on new alignment from the I-664 Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel in Hampton Roads, Virginia to its connection with the planned I-564 Connector at Virginia Avenue near Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk, Virginia. Segment 1 includes a new interchange near the south approach structure of the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel that would connect to a new roadway and bridge tunnel extending from I-664 to the planned I-564 Connector in Norfolk. This interchange would provide access to the existing Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel and would provide a connection along the east side of Craney Island to VA 164 in Portsmouth. The eastern terminus for Segment 1 was shortened to Virginia Avenue because it would now connect with the planned I-564 Connector rather than I-564 farther to the east.

The length of Segment 1 is approximately 6.3 miles. Segment 1 includes a tunnel under the Elizabeth River so as not to impede shipping traffic. Two tunnels would be required to accommodate two lanes for eastbound traffic and two lanes for westbound traffic. Segment 1 was originally referred to as the Hampton Roads Third Crossing.

2.1.2 CBA 9 – SEGMENT 3 Segment 3 would be on new alignment and would extend from its connection with Segment 1 north of Craney Island southward to its connection with VA 164. The length of Segment 3 is approximately 5.7 miles. The southern portion of Segment 3, from the Craney Island Marine Terminal southward to VA 164 (Western Freeway).

Following the CTB’s selection of CBA 9 in 2001, regional transportation plans accounted for the future construction of a dedicated corridor for Segment 3, from the CIMT to VA 164. The corridor alignment was included in the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission’s 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan and VDOT’s 2001 HRCS FEIS. However, after the original alignment for Segment 3 was adopted, the privately-owned APM Terminal was constructed within the limits of Segment 3. Construction of the APM Terminal makes it necessary to shift a portion of Segment 3 to the west to avoid potential impacts to the terminal.

1 Federal Highway Administration and the Virginia Department of Transportation. Hampton Roads Crossing Study: Final Environmental Impact Study and Section 4(f) Evaluation. March 2001. Page S-14.

%&o(

%&m(

Ar

!"̀$

CraneyIsland

DredgedMaterial

ManagementArea

Naval StationNorfolk

Naval SupplyCenter

APMTerminal

Ham

pton Blvd

Virginia AveH

ampton Blvd

Virginia Ave

Segment 1

Segm

ent 3

USCGBase

PortsmouthLandfill

NIT

USCG Small ArmsFiring Range

Eliza

beth River

James River

Lafayette River

City of Portsmouth

City of ChesapeakeCity o

f Suff

olk

City of Portsmouth City of Portsmouth

City of NorfolkCity of ChesapeakeCity o

f Suff

olk

City

of N

ewpo

rt Ne

ws

City of NorfolkCity of Hampton

LegendHRCS CBA 9 - Segments 1 & 3

VA Port Authority Craney Island Interchange

Proposed I-564 Connector

Craney Island Expansion Area 0 1 20.5

Miles

³

Figure 1: Project Location Map

HRCS EA

Original Alignment of Segment 3No Longer Under Consideration

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

!"̀$

!"c$

!"e$

!"d$

!"̀$

!"̀$

!"c$!"e$Danville

LynchburgRoanoke

Richmond

WashingtonWashington

NorfolkProjectArea



In a subsequent, separate study led by the Virginia Port Authority (VPA), the VPA worked with VDOT to design a road and rail connection between VA 164 and Craney Island (i.e., the Craney Island Connector). For the VPA, the Craney Island Connector is essential for providing additional transportation capacity needed to handle the increasing cargo demands with the opening of the Craney Island Marine Terminal. As an initial step in gaining access to VA 164, VDOT requested the VPA perform an Interchange Modification Report (IMR) to identify a feasible and functional alignment for the proposed connection between VA 164 and the future Craney Island Marine Terminal. The VPA ensured that the shifted alignment of the southern portion of Segment 3 would still provide a successful and efficient connection to the northern portion of Segment 3 and Segment 1. In 2010, the Craney Island Marine Terminal IMR received approval from VDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) with respect to the proposed conceptual geometric design of the Craney Island interchange with VA 164 and the shifted alignment of Segment 3.2

The original Segment 3 alignment and the shifted alignment of Segment 3 are illustrated on

Figure 1. The shifted alignment of Segment 3 is the alignment under consideration for this project.

2.1.3 NEW POINTS OF ACCESS Segments 1 and 3 would provide five new points of access:

• At its western terminus, Segment 1 would provide a new interchange near the south approach structure of the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel and would connect to a new roadway and bridge tunnel extending from I-664 to the I-564 Connector in Norfolk. This new interchange would provide Segment 1 access to the existing I-664 Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel.

• At its eastern terminus, Segment 1 would provide a through-travel connection to the proposed I-564 Connector near Virginia Avenue in Norfolk. In addition, restricted access would be provided in the vicinity of Virginia Avenue. This restricted access would be gated and would be limited to authorized Naval Station Norfolk traffic and to authorized Norfolk International Terminal (NIT) traffic.

• A new interchange would be provided where Segment 1 and Segment 3 connect to the north of Craney Island.

• For Segment 3, a new interchange would be provided on Craney Island to provide additional access to the Virginia Port Authority’s Craney Island Marine Terminal, the U.S. Navy Fuel Depot, the U.S. Coast Guard Support Center, and the APM Container Terminal port facility in Portsmouth.

• For Segment 3, at its southern terminus, a new interchange would be provided where Segment 3 connects to VA 164.

2 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Virginia Port Authority. Craney Island Marine Terminal: Interchange Modification Report Executive Summary. March 2010. Page 1.



2.1.4 ROADWAY DESIGN Design criteria were established to meet all applicable VDOT, FHWA, and AASHTO criteria. The overall design for CBA 9 is a limited access urban freeway at 65 mph. The roadway design components have not changed since the original CBA 9 was endorsed by the CTB in 2001.

Segment 1 and Segment 3 would have four lanes (two in each direction) along the new roadway, bridge, and tunnel. While the HRCS FEIS stated that Segment 1 would include a three-tube tunnel typical section to cross the Elizabeth River and connect to Norfolk, only two of the three tubes are being reevaluated as part of this EA: one tube for two lanes of eastbound vehicular traffic and one tube for two lanes of westbound vehicular traffic. However, the third tube proposed for multimodal travel could be constructed at a future date but is not part of this phase of the project. The widening of I-664 on the Peninsula and the Southside, including the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel multimodal component of the selected alternative, are not currently being studied as part of this reevaluation because they are not part of this phase of construction. However, construction of Segment 1 and Segment 3 will not preclude the future implementation of the multimodal elements of the segments.

2.1.5 TUNNEL DESIGN COMPONENTS The tunnel design components have not changed since the original CBA 9 was endorsed by the CTB in 2001. The exception to this is the delayed consideration and construction of the proposed third tunnel that would accommodate the multimodal component of Segment 1. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed tunnel typical section.

Ships entering Hampton Roads from the sea follow the Thimble Shoal Channel into the deep waters of Hampton Roads. Two channels then extend through Hampton Roads. The Newport News Channel extends 6.9 miles westward from Hampton Roads to Newport News, is 800 feet wide, and 50 feet deep. The Norfolk Harbor Channel extends from the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel into the Southside cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake via the Elizabeth River. Between Hampton Roads and Sewell’s Point Terminals in Norfolk, the Norfolk Harbor Channel is 1,000 feet wide and 50 feet deep.

As stated in the HRCS FEIS, CBA 9 – Segment 1 would cross the Norfolk Harbor Channel. To maintain the navigable shipping channels, tunnel construction would be of the immersed tube-type in which the tube sections are placed in a dredged trench on the bay bottom in a position below the shipping channel. Two potential tunnel designs are under consideration: the steel tube design and the concrete tube design (Figure 2). The steel tube design is similar to the existing I-664 tunnel. I-664 was designed as a two-tube, four-lane tunnel. This tunnel design is based on a generally circular tube section that provides space above and below the travelway for ventilation. The ventilation is handled with a fully transverse

Figure 2: Typical Sections ofOptional Tunnel Designs

HRCS EA

*

*

* Multimodal Option is not being studied in this reevaluation.

* Multimodal Option is not being studied in this reevaluation.

Multimodal Component not included in thisphase of HRCS CBA 9 - Segments 1 & 3



system. Fresh air is supplied from ducts under the traffic, passed through the travelway, and exhausted in ducts above the ceiling. The overall height of the circular, steel tube section is 40 feet.3

The concrete tube design offers some advantages over the steel tube design due to its smaller outside dimensions. The concrete tube design is rectangular in section and employs a jet air longitudinal ventilation system that supplies fresh air from one end of the tunnel and pumps it longitudinally in accordance to traffic movements, prevailing winds, and climatic conditions. The overall height of the concrete tube section would be 30 feet. The reduced height decreases the area and volume of dredging required for the tunnel, thereby reducing excavation costs and habitat impacts. Manufacturing of the tunnel tubes is usually done in proximity to the project site due to the concrete tube’s low flotation factor.

2.1.6 ISLAND DESIGN COMPONENTS The tunnel will originate on artificial islands built on either side of the shipping channel. Segment 1 will require one island on the west side of the Norfolk Harbor Channel. The island will measure about 285 feet wide at its top.4

2.2 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The No-Build Alternative provides a baseline of conditions against which to compare the Build Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, none of the five segments of CBA 9 would be constructed because no funding has been committed to their construction. Most existing roads would generally remain in their present configurations. It is assumed that roadway and transit projects committed and funded for construction and included in the CTB’s FY 2011-2016 Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP) would be implemented in the future.

3. TRAFFIC SUMMARY A summary of existing and future traffic for the analysis years is provided, as is peak average daily traffic (ADT) and percent truck traffic for the project. The source(s) for the traffic data and forecasts are also cited, including key assumptions. For this reevaluation, the traffic data presented in the 2001 HRCS Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was updated, as was the traffic data for the air analysis. To develop updated traffic volumes, the Hampton Roads Regional Travel Demand Model was used (as instructed by VDOT) for the intermediate year of 2018 and the design year of 2034. The latest adopted Regional Model is 2030, thus 2034 volumes were derived from the growth rate calculated from 2018 to 2030. Additionally, traffic volumes were developed to update the base year conditions from the year 2000 to 2010. These volumes were interpolated, as needed, for the specific project level CO analysis.

3 Federal Highway Administration and the Virginia Department of Transportation. Hampton Roads Crossing Study: Final Environmental Impact Study and Section 4(f) Evaluation. March 2001. Page S-10.

4 Ibid. Pages 37 – 40.



3.1 EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC

For the No-Build and Build Alternatives, the ADT and peak hour volumes are presented in Table 1 for the Base Year 2010 and Table 2 for the Interim Year 2018 and the Design Year 2034. As mentioned, the updated based year 2010 volumes were interpolated as needed from the 2000 and 2018 volumes.

3.2 TRUCK TRAFFIC

Truck volumes were developed based on previously published truck percentages from the HRCS FEIS, as well as from projected truck traffic due to developments on Craney Island and the Craney Island Eastward Expansion Project. The Craney Island truck traffic was obtained from the Craney Island Marine Terminal: Interchange Modification Report. 5

Table 3 Depending on the facility, projected truck traffic

percentages are in the following ranges ( ):

• Heavy Truck Volume = 2% to 7%

• Medium Truck Volume = 2% to 3%

Truck volumes are expected to increase along with non-truck traffic causing no change to the actual percentage of trucks on the roadways in the interim and design years.

4. EXISTING CONDITIONS The Hampton Roads area is currently designated as a maintenance area for the 8-hour ozone standard (designated 6/1/2007). The area is in attainment for all other criteria pollutants.

5. REGULATORY STANDARDS/CRITERIA Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), federal agencies must consider environmental factors in the decision making process. Changes in air quality, and the effects of such changes on human health and welfare, are among the factors to be considered. A project-level air quality analysis has been performed to assess the air quality impacts of the project, document the findings of the analysis, and make the findings available for review by the public and decision makers. The findings of the analysis, as presented in this report, are summarized in the NEPA documentation.

Under provisions of the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to set NAAQS for pollutants considered harmful to public health and welfare. As shown in Table 4, EPA has established Primary Standards, the attainment and maintenance of which, in the judgment of EPA, and allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public health. EPA also established Secondary Standards to protect the public welfare (e.g., to protect against damage to crops, vegetation, buildings, and animals). The pollutants (carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, fine particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur

5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Virginia Port Authority. Craney Island Marine Terminal: Interchange Modification Report. March 2010. Page 1.



TABLE 1: BASE YEAR 2010 VOLUMES

Source: Michael Baker Jr., Inc.

TABLE 2: INTERIM YEAR 2018 AND DESIGN YEAR 2034 NO-BUILD AND BUILD VOLUMES


2010 ADT2010 Pk Hr Per Lane Volume

Per lane capacity

I-64 Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel 93,256 2,330 1,700

I-664 MMBT (North of Pat Cross) 71,900 1,800 1,750

Craney Island Connector (Patriots Crossing - VA 164) NA NA 1,950

Patriots Crossing (West of Craney Conn.) NA NA 1,950

Patriots Crossing (East of Craney Conn.) NA NA 1,950

US 17 James River Bridge 40,044 1,000 1,700

I-64 (I-664 to Mercury Blvd.) 156,789 2,610 2,250

I-664 (I-64 - Downtown Newport News) 72,689 1,210 1,850

Jefferson Avenue (I-664 - Mercury Blvd.) 30,311 510 825

I-64 (I-564 - I-264) 149,178 2,490 2,175

I-64 (I-464 - I-664) 75,411 1,890 2,250

VA 164 Western Freeway (I-664 – Midtown Tunnel) 48,867 1,220 2,000

I-264 (Newtown Rd - Witchduck Rd) 220,622 2,760 2,125

VA 337 Hampton Blvd. (Lafayette River–Midtown Tunnel 43,211 1,080 850

I-264 Downtown Tunnel 107,744 2,690 1,700

US 58 Midtown Tunnel 53,967 2,700 1,600

Facility

2010



TABLE 3: TRUCK PERCENTAGES FOR 2018 AND 2034


Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel

(I-64)

Monitor Merrimac

Memorial Bridge Tunnel(I-664)

Craney Island Connector

(Patriots Crossing - VA 164)

Patriots Crossing(East of Craney Island

Conn.)

ADT 98,900 81,100 - -Heavy Truck Volume 1,980 3,920 - -

(% of ADT) 2% 5% - -Medium Truck Volume 1,980 2,820 - -

(% of ADT) 2% 3% - -

ADT 87,400 113,800 45,300 78,800Heavy Truck Volume 1,750 5,480 2,660 4,130

(% of ADT) 2% 5% 6% 5%Medium Truck Volume 1,750 3,620 1,560 2,710

(% of ADT) 2% 3% 3% 3%

ADT 113,800 98,100 - -Heavy Truck Volume 2,280 5,260 - -

(% of ADT) 2% 5% - -Medium Truck Volume 2,280 3,370 - -

(% of ADT) 2% 3% - -

ADT 100,400 134,700 53,600 90,400Heavy Truck Volume 2,010 6,930 3,970 5,440

(% of ADT) 2% 5% 7% 6%Medium Truck Volume 2,010 4,630 1,840 3,110

(% of ADT) 2% 3% 3% 3%

2018 No-Build

2018 Build

2034 No-Build

2034 Build



TABLE 4: NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS)

Pollutant Primary Standards Secondary Standards

Level Averaging Time Level Averaging Time

Carbon Monoxide 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 8-hour (1) None

35 ppm (40 mg/m3) 1-hour (1)

Lead 0.15 µg/m3 (2) Rolling 3-Month Avg. Same as Primary

Nitrogen Dioxide

53 ppb (3) Annual (Arithmetic Avg.) Same as Primary

100 ppb 1-hour (4) None

Particulate Matter (PM10)

150 µg/m3 24-hour (5) Same as Primary

Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

15.0 µg/m3 Annual (6) (Arithmetic Avg.) Same as Primary

35 µg/m3 24-hour (7) Same as Primary

Ozone 0.075 ppm (2008 std) 8-hour (8) Same as Primary

0.08 ppm (1997 std) 8-hour (9) Same as Primary

0.12 ppm 1-hour (10) Same as Primary

Sulfur Dioxide

0.03 ppm (11) (1971 std) Annual (Arithmetic Avg.) 0.5 ppm 3-hour (1)

0.14 ppm (11) (1971 std) 24-hour (1)

75 ppb (12) 1-hour None Source: US Environmental Protection Agency website: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html.

(1) Not to be exceeded more than once per year. (2)Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 µg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area

is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

(3) The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is shown here for the purpose of clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard

(4) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 100 ppb (effective January 22, 2010).

(5) Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. (6) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community-

oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 µg/m3. (7) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an

area must not exceed 35 µg/m3 (effective December 17, 2006). (8) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each

monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm. (effective May 27, 2008) (9) (a) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at

each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm.

(b) The 1997 standard—and the implementation rules for that standard—will remain in place for implementation purposes as EPA undertakes rulemaking to address the transition from the 1997 ozone standard to the 2008 ozone standard. (c) EPA is in the process of reconsidering these standards (set in March 2008).

(10) (a) EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard, although some areas have continuing obligations under that standard ("anti-backsliding"). (b) The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is < 1.

(11) The 1971 sulfur dioxide standards remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.

(12) Final rule signed June 2, 2010. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 75 ppb.

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html#1�


http://www.epa.gov/airquality/lead/�


http://www.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/�

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/�



http://www.epa.gov/pm/�







http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/�







http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/oindex.html�



dioxide) for which NAAQS have been established are called “criteria pollutants.” Federal actions must not cause or contribute to any new violation of the NAAQS, increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation, or delay timely attainment of any standard or required interim milestone.

Geographic regions that do not meet NAAQS for one or more criteria pollutants are designated by EPA as “nonattainment areas.” Areas previously designated as nonattainment, but subsequently redesignated attainment because they no longer violate NAAQS, are designated as “maintenance areas” subject to maintenance plans to be developed and included in a state’s SIP. The project is located in the Hampton Roads area and has been designated as a maintenance area for the 8-hour ozone standard and is in attainment for all other NAAQS criteria pollutants.

The federal conformity rule (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93) requires air quality conformity determinations for transportation plans, programs, and projects in “non-attainment or maintenance areas for transportation-related criteria pollutants for which the area is designated nonattainment or has a maintenance plan” (40 CFR 93.102(b)). Transportation-related criteria pollutants, as specified in the conformity rule, include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and particulate matter less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively). Regional conformity analysis requirements apply for plans and programs; hot-spot analysis requirements of 40 CFR 93.116 and 93.123 apply for projects.

Modeling protocols for quantitative hot-spot analyses were completed in compliance with the standards outlined in 40 CFR 51, Appendix W, “Guideline on Air Quality Models,” and guidelines in EPA’s “Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections” (EPA-454/R-92-005). EPA and FHWA issued joint guidance for conducting hot-spot analyses for particulate matter: Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot-Spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas (March 2006). The proposed project is an attainment area and, as such, does not require a qualitative assessment of PM2.5.

FHWA issued on February 3, 2006 a guidance memorandum titled Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. The guidance included specific criteria for determining which projects are to be considered exempt from MSAT analysis requirements and which may require a qualitative or quantitative analysis. Projects considered exempt under section 40 CFR 93.126 of the federal conformity rule are also specifically designated as exempt from MSAT analysis requirements. Any project that creates new capacity or adds significant capacity to urban highways such as interstates, urban arterials, or urban collector-distributor routes with forecasted design year average annual daily traffic volumes in the range of 140,000 to 150,000 or greater, and which is also in proximity to populated areas, such as this project, requires a quantitative analysis.

FHWA issued on September 30, 2009 an updated guidance memorandum titled Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. The updated guidance reflects recent regulatory changes, projects national MSAT emission trends out to 2050, and summarizes recent research efforts; however, it does not change any project analysis thresholds, recommendations, or guidelines.



FHWA and VDOT executed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on February 27, 2009 that outlines when a qualitative or quantitative CO hot-spot analysis is required. Under provisions of the MOU, this project requires a quantitative CO analysis.

VDOT’s May 2009 Consultant Guide: Air Quality Project-Level Analysis, provides the guidelines and standards for conducting air quality analyses for transportation projects in Virginia. The guide complies with and supplements/summarizes FHWA and EPA guidelines. The air quality analyses presented in this report are consistent with the Guide.

6. CONFORMITY The Hampton Roads area is currently designated as a maintenance area for the 8-hour ozone standard (designated 6/1/2007). The area is in attainment for all other criteria pollutants.

The project is listed as PE only in the current FY 12-15 TIP and 2030 LRTP, and is also listed as PE only in the new 2034 LRTP (conformity approval pending); therefore, it is currently exempt from regional conformity requirements. The project will eventually need to be fiscally-constrained through construction and included in a conforming TIP and LRTP.

7. OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ANALYSIS The project level air quality analysis requires a quantitative CO analysis, is exempt from a PM2.5 analysis, and requires a qualitative MSAT analysis. Additionally, the potential impacts from the tunnel operations were also analyzed.

7.1 CARBON MONOXIDE

The project is located in an area that is in attainment of the CO standard. A quantitative CO study was conducted following VDOT’s Air Quality Guidance, including all suggested model inputs. The project is primarily a free-flow bridge/tunnel project; therefore, signalized intersections were chosen at the existing and proposed interchanges in the project area. There are two existing signalized intersections near the south end of Segment 3 at the Cedar Lane/Route 164 interchange and a proposed signalized single point interchange to be located at the Norfolk Naval Station between CBA 9 - Segment 1 and I- 564 Intermodal Connector. Additionally, even though it is a non-signalized interchange with a free-flow condition, the new interchange at Segment 3 and VA 164 was included in the analysis to provide a thorough evaluation and to identify possible impacts in the residential area located south of the interchange. The following chart shows the design year ADT’s and LOS’s for the analysis intersections/interchanges in the project area. As a result of the variables, a quantitative analysis was required. The first two interchanges shown were carried forward for quantitative analysis because they were LOS “D” or worse. The latter two sites were dismissed from further study because they had a LOS better than LOS “D”. Additionally, a free-flow mainline CO analysis was performed along the Craney Island Connector portion of Segment 3. The mainline has been shifted to the west from its initial location. As a result, the alignment moved closer to Churchland High School. Therefore, the high school



(at its nearest site at the ball fields) was also modeled as the only other area potential affected by the project.

Intersection/Interchange 2034 ADT LOS

VA 164/Cedar Lane westbound intersection 74,900 (mainline) F

VA 164/Segment 3 interchange 74,900/53,600 (mainline) D

Segment 3 interchange on Craney Island 53,600 (mainline) C

VA 164/Cedar Lane eastbound intersection 74,900 (mainline) C

Please note that there is one other nearby interchange that was considered for analysis; the conceptual I-564 Intermodal Connector interchange with the Norfolk Naval Air Station and the Norfolk International Terminal. A portion of it is currently part of the I-564 Intermodal Connector project to the east of Segment 1. For this separate I-564 project, there is a partial Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) concept being considered at this time but it has not been approved. There are no air quality receptors in the immediate vicinity of the interchange as the nearby land use is industrial. The nearest potential receptors where the public is located are located approximately 1,500 feet to the east-southeast in a residential neighborhood. At this distance, they are too far away to be impacted. As mentioned, this interchange is conceptual, it has not been approved, there is no design, and the nearest air quality receptors are approximately 1,500 feet away. Furthermore, CO air quality analyses have been performed for SPUI alternatives on Interstate projects in other states with no predicted NAAQS impacts. As a result of these variables, this interchange was not analyzed.

The microscale air dispersion analysis followed the guidance and model input parameters in the VDOT air quality manual. The Easy Mobile Inventory Tool (EMIT), a graphical-user interface tool to MOBILE 6.2, and CAL3QHC models were used to determine the emissions and CO concentrations (including background), respectively As part of this reevaluation, total concentrations were modeled for the base year 2010 condition and the 2018 and 2034 Build and No-Build Alternatives. Specific receptor locations included points along the approach and departure links of the intersection, located outside of the mixing zone as a worst case condition, as per EPA Guidelines for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections. As a worst case condition, if these receptor points do not exceed the criteria, then it will be assumed that no other point farther away will exceed the criteria. There are no other sites such as parks, recreation areas (other than the ball fields at the school) or historic sites in the immediate project area that might be affected by air quality.

Figures 3, 4, and 5 show the CO air quality receptors that were analyzed for the Cedar Lane interchange, the Churchland High School area, and the VA164/Segment 3 interchange, respectively

EE

E

E

E EE

E

E

E

EE

EE

E

E

E

E

E

E

EE

EE

EE

E

ESE8

SE7

SE6

SE5SE4

SE3SE2 SE1

NE9

NE8

NE7

NE6

NE5

NE4NE3

NE2NE1

NW6

NW5

NW4

NW3NW2NW1

SW4

SW3

SW2

SW1

NE10

SE8

SE7

SE6

SE5SE4

SE3SE2 SE1

NE9

NE8

NE7

NE6

NE5

NE4NE3

NE2NE1

NW6

NW5

NW4

NW3NW2NW1

SW4

SW3

SW2

SW1

NE10

WESTERN FWY

CE

DA

R L

N

GREENBROOK DR

CRABTREE PL

COAST GUARD BLVD

WE

YAN

OK

E D

R

SUMMERSET DR

OAKH

UR

ST RD

CRABTREE CT

³

Figure 3: Air Quality ReceptorsCedar Lane Interchange

CBA 9: 500’ Wide Corridor

0 300 600

Feet HRCS EA

Parcel Lines

Build Alternative CBA 9 - Segment 3

E Air Quality Receptor

nm ChurchlandHigh School

E

COAST GUARD BLV

D

CHURCHLAND HS

0 500 1,000250

Feet

³

Figure 4: Air Quality ReceptorChurchland High School

Parcel Lines


nm School



HRCS EA

EE

E

EE

E EEE E

EE

EE

E

EE

EE

E

E

E

E

98

76

5

4

32

1

23

22

21

20

191817

16

15

14

13

1211

109

87

6

5

4

32

1

23

22

21

20

191817

16

15

14

13

1211

10

WESTERN FWY

NORFOLK RD

MILAN DR

WYCLIFF RD

SHANNON RD

WILD DUCK LN

GOOSE BAY DR

MORRO BLVDORLEANS DR

LINNET LN

BUR

R L

N

BRIARWOOD LN

MALLAR

D C

RES

COAST GUARD BLVD

HO

LLY RD

CAR

DIN

AL LN

NORFOLK RD

Figure 5: Air Quality ReceptorsSegment 3 and

VA 164 Interchange


HRCS EA0 600 1,200

Feet

³



Parcel Lines



Table 5 shows the input parameters and model input values used in the microscale analysis.

Table 5: CAL3QHC Input Parameters

Input Parameter Model Input Value

Surface Roughness Coefficient

Urban - 175 centimeters

Background CO Concentrations

See Appendix 3

Wind Speed 1 meter/second

Stability Class Urban – D

Mixing Height 1000 meters

Averaging Period 60 minutes

Persistence Factor 0.7

Traffic Peak Hour volumes for the year 2010, 2014 and 2034 build and no-build conditions

Sources: VDOT Consultant Guide-Project Level Air Quality Analysis, Michael Baker

Table 6 shows the total CO concentrations for the base year and opening year and design year build and no-build conditions. The 1-hour criteria is 35 ppm and the 8-hour is 9 ppm. The results indicate that there is no exceedance of the NAAQS criteria under any condition. No further analysis or mitigation is required.

Table 6: Total CO Concentrations (Worst-Case Receptor ppm, Including Background)

Intersection Base Year 2010

Opening Year 2018 No-Build

Opening Year 2018

Build

Design Year 2034 No-

Build

Design Year 2034 Build

Route 164 westbound ramps / Cedar Road

7.0 (1-hour) 4.9 (8-hour)

7.1 (1-hour) 5.0 (8-hour)

6.8 (1-hour) 4.7 (8-hour)

7.0 (1-hour) 4.9 (8-hour)

6.9 (1-hour) 4.8 (8-hour)

Churchland High School

3.6 (1-hour) 2.5 (8-hour)

3.6 (1-hour) 2.5 (8-hour)

3.6 (1-hour) 2.5 (8-hour)

3.6 (1-hour) 2.5 (8-hour)

3.7 (1-hour) 2.6 (8-hour)

Craney Island Connector / VA 164 Interchange

3.9 (1-hour) 2.7 (8-hour)

3.9 (1-hour) 2.7 (8-hour)

3.9 (1-hour) 2.7 (8-hour)

3.9 (1-hour) 2.7 (8-hour)

3.9 (1-hour) 2.7 (8-hour)




7.2 PARTICULATE MATTER

The project is located in an area that is classified as being in attainment of both the PM2.5 and PM10

standards. It is also not a project of air quality concern. It is not a new or expanded highway project that will result in a significant increase in diesel vehicles, such as facilities with greater than 125,000 annual average daily traffic (AADT) and 8% or more of such AADT is diesel truck traffic. The greatest 2034 design year ADT is predicted to be approximately 90,400 on Patriot’s Crossing east of the Craney Island Connector with a 6% diesel truck percentage. Therefore, no further analysis is required.

7.3 MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS (MSAT)

A qualitative analysis was performed since the project is neither exempt nor does it meet the quantitative analysis requirement (any project that creates new or adds significant capacity to urban highways such as interstates, urban arterials, or urban collector-distributor routes with traffic volumes where the AADT is projected to be in the range of 140,000 to 150,000 or greater by the design year). FHWA has provided an Interim Guidance Update on MSAT Analysis for NEPA documents (September, 2009) which includes the following prototype language provided to meet the requirements for a qualitative analysis:

BACKGROUND Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The EPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007) and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are listed in their Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.html). In addition, EPA identified seven compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/). These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter. While FHWA considers these the priority mobile source air toxics, the list is subject to change and may be adjusted in consideration of future EPA rules.

The 2007 EPA rule mentioned above requires controls that will dramatically decrease MSAT emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. According to an FHWA analysis using EPA's MOBILE6.2 model, even if vehicle activity (vehicle-miles travelled, VMT) increases by 145 percent as assumed, a combined reduction of 72 percent in the total annual emission rate for the priority MSAT is projected from 1999 to 2050, as shown in Figure 6.

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.html�

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/�



NATIONAL MSAT EMISSION TRENDS 1999 - 2050 FOR VEHICLES OPERATING ON ROADWAYS USING EPA's MOBILE6.2 MODEL

Note: (1) Annual emissions of polycyclic organic matter are projected to be 561 tons/yr for 1999, decreasing to 373 tons/yr for 2050. (2) Trends for specific locations may be different, depending on locally derived information representing vehicle-miles traveled, vehicle speeds, vehicle mix, fuels, emission control programs, meteorology, and other factors Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. MOBILE6.2 Model run 20 August 2009.

FIGURE 6: National MSAT Emission Trends 1999 - 2050



A qualitative analysis provides a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions, if any, from the various alternatives. The qualitative assessment presented below is derived in part from a study conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project Alternatives, found at: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/research/methodology/methodology00.cfm.

For each alternative in this EA, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. The VMT estimated for the Build Alternative is slightly higher than that for the No Build Alternative, because the additional capacity increases the efficiency of the roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in the transportation network. The VMT is approximately 47.3 million for the Build Alternative versus 46.8 million for the No-Build Alternative in 2030, extrapolated to 58.9 and 58.3 million, respectively, in 2034, based on 2034 Regional Conformity Analysis (draft, August 2011). This increase in VMT would lead to higher MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative along the highway corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along the parallel routes. The emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds; according to EPA's MOBILE6.2 model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs except for diesel particulate matter decrease as speed increases. The extent to which these speed-related emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models. Because the estimated VMT under each of the Alternatives are nearly the same, varying by less than 1 percent, it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by 72 percent between 1999 and 2050. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases.

The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the Build Alternative will have the effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, schools, and businesses; therefore, under each alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSAT could be higher under the Build Alternative than the No Build Alternative. The localized increase in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along the roadway sections that would be built along Segment 3 under the Build Alternative. However, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases compared to the No-Build Alternative cannot be reliably quantified due to incomplete or unavailable information in forecasting project-specific MSAT health impacts. In sum, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No-Build Alternative but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/research/methodology/methodology00.cfm�



reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.

UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION FOR PROJECT SPECIFIC MSAT IMPACT ANALYSIS This air quality analysis includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project. However, available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-specific health impacts of the emission changes associated with the alternatives in the corresponding Environmental Assessment (EA). Due to these limitations, the following discussion is included in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information:

Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete. Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling, dispersion modeling in order to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling in order to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and then final determination of health impacts based on the estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of this project.

1. Emissions: The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not sensitive to key variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context of highway projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used to predict emissions at a regional level, it has limited applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a trip-based model--emission factors are projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles, and on average speeds for this typical trip. This means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to predict emission factors for a specific vehicle operating condition at a specific location at a specific time. Because of this limitation, MOBILE 6.2 can only approximate the operating speeds and levels of congestion likely to be present on the largest-scale projects, and cannot adequately capture emissions effects of smaller projects. For particulate matter, the model results are not sensitive to average trip speed, although the other MSAT emission rates do change with changes in trip speed. Also, the emissions rates used in MOBILE 6.2 for both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a limited number of tests of mostly older-technology vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions of PM under the conformity rule, EPA has identified problems with MOBILE6.2 as an obstacle to quantitative analysis.

These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT emissions. MOBILE6.2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and performing relative analyses between alternatives for very large projects, but it is not sensitive enough to capture the effects of travel changes tied to smaller projects or to predict emissions near specific roadside locations.

2. Dispersion. The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The EPA’s current regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated more than a decade ago for the purpose of predicting episodic concentrations of carbon monoxide to determine compliance with the NAAQS. The performance of dispersion models is more accurate for predicting maximum concentrations that can occur at some time at some location within a geographic area. This limitation makes it difficult to predict accurate exposure patterns at specific times at specific highway project



locations across an urban area to assess potential health risk. The NCHRP is conducting research on best practices in applying models and other technical methods in the analysis of MSATs. This work also will focus on identifying appropriate methods of documenting and communicating MSAT impacts in the NEPA process and to the general public. Along with these general limitations of dispersion models, FHWA is also faced with a lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project-specific MSAT background concentrations.

3. Exposure Levels and Health Effects. Finally, even if emission levels and concentrations of MSATs could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current techniques for exposure assessment and risk analysis preclude us from reaching meaningful conclusions about project-specific health impacts. Exposure assessments are difficult because it is difficult to accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs near roadways, and to determine the portion of a year that people are actually exposed to those concentrations at a specific location. These difficulties are magnified for 70-year cancer assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over a 70-year period. There are also considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general population. Because of these shortcomings, any calculated difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with calculating the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against other project impacts that are better suited for quantitative analysis.

SUMMARY OF EXISTING CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO EVALUATING THE IMPACTS OF MSATS. Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission types, there are a variety of studies that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse health outcomes through epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to large doses.

Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts. Most notably, the agency conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates of human exposure applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of or benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the NATA database best illustrate the levels of various toxics when aggregated to a national or State level.

The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these pollutants. The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health effects that may result from exposure to various substances found in the environment. The IRIS database is located at http://www.epa.gov/iris. The following toxicity information for the six prioritized MSATs was taken from the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries. This information is taken verbatim from EPA's IRIS database and represents the Agency's most current evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures.



• Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen.

• The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or inhalation route of exposure.

• Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, and sufficient evidence in animals.

• 1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.

• Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after inhalation exposure.

• Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases.

• Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary noncancer hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function and could produce symptoms, such as cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure relationships have not been developed from these studies.

There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways. The Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by EPA, FHWA, and industry, has undertaken a major series of studies to research near-roadway MSAT hot spots, the health implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants, and other topics. The final summary of the series is not expected for several years.

Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health outcomes -- particularly respiratory problems . Much of this research is not specific to MSATs, instead surveying the full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. The FHWA cannot evaluate the validity of these studies, but more importantly, they do not provide information that would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above and enable us to perform a more comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to this project.

Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information to Evaluating Reasonably Foreseeable Significant Adverse Impacts on the Environment, and Evaluation of impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. Because of the uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic emissions impacts on human health cannot be made at the project level. While available tools do allow us to reasonably predict relative emissions changes between alternatives for larger projects, the amount of MSAT emissions from each of the project alternatives and MSAT concentrations or exposures created by each of the project alternatives cannot be predicted with enough accuracy to be useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted above, the current emissions model is not capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis tool for smaller projects.) Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that



it is not possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant adverse impacts on the human environment.”

In this document, FHWA has provided a qualitative analysis of MSAT emissions relative to the various alternatives and has acknowledged that the project alternative may result in increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations, although the concentrations and duration of exposures are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health effects from these emissions cannot be estimated.

7.4 TUNNEL ASSESSMENT

The project includes two tunnels below the Elizabeth River channel as part of Segment 1, between Segment 3 and the Norfolk International Terminal (NIT), located near the city boundary between Norfolk and Portsmouth. Both tunnels will accommodate two lanes of travel each, with one tunnel serving eastbound travel and one serving westbound travel. Two potential tunnel designs are under consideration: a steel tube design and a concrete tube design. The new tunnels would be approximately 4,500 feet long (0.852 miles) with a perpendicular river-crossing alignment and would be located adjacent and parallel to each other. For the purposes of this analysis, because a tunnel design is yet to be determined, it is assumed that the tunnel design will be similar to that proposed for VDOT’s Midtown Tunnel, also in Norfolk and Portsmouth.6

It is assumed the tunnels will have semi-transverse ventilation systems with a supply air capacity of 800,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm). According to the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE) Handbook, the ventilation system design is based mainly on two factors: 1) controlling the level of vehicle emissions to acceptable concentrations within the tunnel during normal operations; and 2) controlling and removing smoke and hot gases during fire emergencies.

7

This tunnel air quality analysis addresses the first design factor and demonstrates that the proposed CBA 9 - Segment 1 tunnel ventilation system air quantities are consistent with the normal ventilation air quantities as described and documented in the ASHRAE standards. The analysis also demonstrates the tunnels’ capability to ensure the control of vehicle emission pollutants in the tunnels to appropriate levels and ensures both the traveling public’s and highway worker’s safety with respect to air quality within the tunnels. Specifically, the analysis will demonstrate that air quality in the tunnels would be controlled in compliance with current FHWA/USEPA guidelines for CO concentrations in tunnels. According to the ASHRAE standard, tests and operating experience show that, when CO is adequately

6 U.S. Dept. of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration and Virginia Department of Transportation. Environmental Assessment: Downtown Tunnel – Midtown Tunnel – Martin Luther King Freeway Extension Project. Cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia. March 2011. http://midtowntunnel.org/. Accessed 10/27/11.

7 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 2011 ASHRAE Handbook – HVAC

Applications. Chapter 13, Enclosed Vehicular Facilities – Tunnels. Atlanta, Georgia. 2011.

http://midtowntunnel.org/�



controlled, the other vehicle emission pollutants are likewise adequately controlled. Table 7 presents the current FHWA/USEPA guideline values for CO in proposed new tunnels.

TABLE 7: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATIONS IN NEW TUNNELS FOR PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC

Exposure Time (minutes) CO Concentration (ppm)

15 120

30 65

45 45

60 35*

*Note: 35 ppm is also the 1-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for atmospheric concentrations of CO.

The approach to the tunnel air quality is based on demonstrating that the 1-hour NAAQS for CO concentration of 35 ppm would be met inside the tunnels. If the 35 ppm standard is met inside the tunnels, it can be concluded that emissions from the portals and exhaust vents would not contribute to any violations of the CO NAAQS in the ambient air outside the tunnels.

To use this approach, the analysis addresses the worst-case scenarios. This is generally considered to be one of two scenarios:

• Peak-hour traffic for routine tunnel operations and

• An incident that stops traffic (e.g., accident, vehicle breakdown).

In the case of peak-hour traffic, this is normally one or two hours in the early morning and one or two hours again in the late afternoon that represent rush-hour traffic congestion at corresponding speeds (i.e., speeds lower than average). In the case of the incident scenario, the other potential worst-case is characterized by stopped vehicles crowded bumper-to-bumper in both lanes with all engines idling. Under this scenario, the build-up of pollutant emissions in the tunnel may be maximized because the highest CO emission rates occur during idling. Each of these conditions was defined in terms of tunnel data and traffic/emission assumptions and a set of calculations was developed for each to demonstrate that CO levels inside the tunnel will not exceed the 35 ppm threshold. Details for each scenario are presented below.

7.4.1 PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC CONDITION The key inputs for assessing the peak-hour traffic condition for normal tunnel operations are summarized in Table 8.



TABLE 8: KEY INPUTS FOR PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC CALCULATIONS

Parameter Value/Units

Tunnel Length 4,500 feet

Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 90,400 vehicles (2034 Build Alternative)

Worst-Case Peak-Hour Speeds 45 mph (congested) eastbound or westbound

Peak Hour Traffic Volume 9,040 (4,520 each way)

CO Emission Factor 6.58 g/mile (45 mph; congested speed, consistent with a 1.14 V/C ratio and LOS F)

Ventilation System Air Exchange Rate 17.8 ACH

*Note: The source of all inputs is documented in Table 9.

Given the tunnel length of 4,500 feet, the typical vehicle in-tunnel residence time is under 15 minutes for all speeds down to 3.5 mph. Therefore, an exposure time of 15 minutes is appropriate for assessment of peak-hour traffic conditions. Speeds lower than 3.5 mph are best represented by the idling condition examined in Section 7.4.2 that follows.

Table 9 presents the calculations for the tunnel air quality analysis. As shown in Table 9, Calculation Steps A1 through A8 demonstrate that CO levels would be controlled to a maximum of 19.8 ppm or 16.5 percent of the 15-minute exposure level of 120 ppm. The analysis also shows that, under routine peak-hour conditions, the CO concentrations in the tunnel would be maintained at a level below 35 ppm. Steps A7 and A9 show that this is the case with the expected CO concentration of 19.8 ppm, representing 56.6 percent of the 1-hour standard of 35 ppm. This calculated CO value of 19.8 ppm includes a 3.6 ppm contribution from the urban ambient background level established for the Hampton Roads region by VDOT (based on VDOT Environmental Quality monitoring data) and assumed to exist in the tunnel ventilation system supply air.

7.4.2 INCIDENT (IDLING VEHICLES) CONDITION The key inputs for assessing the idling traffic condition associated with tunnel incidents are presented in Table 10. And, as shown in Table 9, Calculation Steps B1 through B6 demonstrate that CO levels would be controlled to a maximum of 27.2 ppm, or 77.7 percent of the 60-minute exposure level of 35 ppm for the worst-case condition of a traffic stoppage that lasts one hour. This calculated CO value also includes a 3.6 ppm contribution from the urban ambient background level established by VDOT and assumed to exist in the tunnel ventilation system supply air.



TABLE 9: CBA 9 – SEGMENT 1 TUNNEL AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS

Datai

Units (English or Metric as

applicable)

Source

Tunnel Data1

Lanes 2 VDOT/FHWA Environmental Assessment (EA). Reevaluation of Hampton Roads Crossing Study (HRCS) FEIS: Candidate Build Alternative CBA 9 – Segments 1 & 3. 2011

Length (feet) 4,500 ft Preliminary Calculations

Length (miles) 0.852 mi Preliminary Calculations

Tube Height 20 ft FHWA Road Tunnel Design Guidelines, Jan 2004

Tube Width 30 ft FHWA Road Tunnel Design Guidelines, Jan 2004

Tube Volume 2,700,000 ft3 Calculations

Idle Vehicle Capacity 450 Calculations – assume 20 feet per vehicle

Ventilation System Data2

Type Semi-

transverse VDOT/FHWA EA

Supply Air Capacity 800,000 cfm MLK Tunnel Analysis

Air Exchanges over 60-min (ACH) 17.8 Calculations

Traffic / Emission Assumptions

ADT3 90,400 Michael Baker Jr., Inc.

Worst-case Speeds 0 mph (idle) Calculations

Residence Time @ 5 to 35 mph (min)

1.5 to 10.2 min Calculations

Peak-hour Fraction of ADT 0.10 Michael Baker Jr., Inc.

CO Emission Factor – Idle (g/veh-hr)4 82.0 Mobile6.2 Calculations (EMIT)

CO Emission Factor – 45 mph (g/VMT)

6.58 Mobile6.2 Calculations (EMIT)

A. Calculation for Peak-Hour Condition for Comparison to 15-Minute Standard of 120 ppm

Assumptions: The 15-minute period is valid for the comparison because the vehicle residence time in tunnel ranges from 1.5 to 10.2 minutes for 5 to

35 mph traffic.

A1 Peak-Hour ADT (# vehicles) = ADT x 0.5 (worst-case traffic in one direction) x 0.1 (peak-hour fraction) = 4,520 vehicles

A2 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) = Peak-Hour ADT x tunnel length (miles) = 3,851 VMT

A3 Emission Rate (mg/hr) = Peak-Hour VMT (miles) x CO EF (g/VMT) x 1,000 mg/g = 25,339,580 mg/hr

A4 Static 60-Minute CO Concentration = Emission Rate (mg/hr)/Tube Volume (m1) = 331.626 mg/m3

A5 Diluted CO Concentration over 60 Minutes (mg/m3) = CO Concentration (mg/m3)/Air Exchanges = 18.6 mg/m3

A6 Convert to ppm3 = 16.2 ppm

A7 Add ambient CO background concentration of 3.6 ppm for 1-hr = 19.8 ppm

A8 Result as % of Tunnel Standard of 120 ppm = 16.5 %

A9 Result as % of Tunnel Standard of 35 ppm = 56.6 %

B. Calculation for Incident (Idling Condition) for Comparison to 60-Minute Standard of 35 ppm

B1 Emission Rate (mg/hr) = Vehicle Capacity x CO EF (g/veh-hr) x 1,000 mg/g = 36,900,000 mg/hr

B2 Static 60-Minute CO Concentration = Emission Rate (mg/hr)/Tube Volume (m1) = 482.921 mg/m3

B3 Diluted CO Concentration over 60 Minutes (mg/m3) = CO Concentration (mg/m3)/Air Exchanges = 27.1 mg/m3

B4 Convert to ppm = 23.6 ppm



B5 Add Ambient CO Background Concentration of 3.6 ppm for 1-hr5 = 27.2 ppm

B6 Result as % of Tunnel Standard of 35 ppm = 77.7 %

Notes: 1. The new CBA 9 – Segment 1 tunnels are two-lane tunnels that will handle traffic from only one direction (eastbound or westbound). 2. The 2001 HRCS FEIS specifies a semi-transverse ventilation system. It is assumed the supply air capacity will be 800,000 cfm. 3. Worst-case, two-way ADT is that of the 2034 Build Alternative, as presented in the 2011 EA for this project. 4. CO emission factors calculated from MOBILE6.2 (EMIT) using local and other inputs consistent with the VDOT Consultant Guide Air Quality

Project Level Analysis, Revision 18, May 2009. 5. 1 ppm CO = 1.15 mg/m3 6. Background CO concentrations in urban areas (Hampton Roads): 1-hr = 3.6 ppm. From VDOT Consultant Guide Air Quality Project Level

Analysis.

TABLE 10: CBA 9 – KEY INPUTS FOR IDLING TRAFFIC CALCULATIONS

Parameter Value/Units

Tunnel Length 4,500 feet

Idle Vehicle Capacity 450 vehicles

CO Idling Emission Factor 82.0 g/veh-hr

Ventilation System Air Exchange Rate 17.8 ACH

In addition to the CO compliance calculation, the FHWA/USEPA guideline requires that tunnel incident management techniques be addressed as part of the environmental analysis. This is to further ensure that CO exposure levels of the traveling public are kept to a minimum during accidents and breakdowns. As part of the agreement for operation of the tunnel facilities, VDOT will prepare detailed technical requirements for tunnel operations during final design. These requirements will stipulate that the tunnel operator, “provide sufficient equipment and personnel to support incident and emergency management operations on the facility 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks per year” and “take necessary action using appropriate resources to handle any and all traffic control needs to ensure the safety of the incident scene and traveling public and to minimize the potential for pollution of watercourses or groundwater.” Furthermore, the operator “must ensure that procedures are in place for public/agency notifications, incident management, ensuring the safety of motorists, handling of hazardous waste, and coordination with VDOT, police, and other emergency personnel with respect to emergency incidents and occurrences.” Finally, the VDOT performance requirements will state that “All incidents that occur within the facility are to be detected and classified within five minutes of occurrence; that traffic management messages contributing to the safety of motorists and road workers are to be applied within five minutes of the detection and classification of an incident or the identification of deteriorated road conditions; and all incident information (including the character and severity of the incident is to be passed to VDOT within five minutes of the Concessionaire determining the incident classification.”



8. CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ANALYSIS The temporary air quality impacts from construction are not expected to be significant. Construction activities are to be performed in accordance with the Department's current Road and Bridge Specifications. The Specifications are approved as conforming to the State Implementation Plan and require compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.

There are two areas most likely to notice the temporary construction activities. The first is at the Churchland High School, located east of Segment 3. However, the property is at least 1,500 feet from the proposed road. It is not likely to be affected by temporary construction emissions. The second area is the residential land use along West Norfolk Road located south of Route 164 to the east and west of the new interchange. The residences to the west will be approximately 500 feet from the ramp construction. The residences to the east abut the Route 164 corridor, buffered only by the railroad tracks. As long as the standard measures of the Road and Bridge Specifications are followed, then no special mitigation measures beyond the specifications are proposed. These standard measures may include dust control, equipment maintenance, and containment systems, as applicable.

9. MITIGATION Based on the results of the qualitative and quantitative analyses, mitigation is not required other than the standard measures to be employed during the roadway construction.

10. CONCLUSION Based on the results of the qualitative and quantitative analyses, the following conclusions can be reached as a result of the analysis:

• The region is classified as a maintenance area for the 8-hour ozone standard.

• The region is in attainment for all other NAAQS criteria pollutants.

• Ozone - The project is currently exempt from regional conformity requirements. Eventually, the project will need to be fiscally-constrained through construction and included in a conforming TIP and LRTP.

• Carbon Monoxide - There were no predicted exceedances of the NAAQS.

• Particulate Matter - The project is in an attainment area for PM2.5 and PM10 and no analysis is required.

• Mobile Source Air Toxics - The project did not meet the criteria for a quantitative analysis. The qualitative analysis results indicated that regional MSATs will be reduced as a result of a result of EPA's national control programs.

• Construction emissions will be controlled using standard measures according to VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications.

• The project is not expected to interfere with the attainment and/or maintenance of the applicable NAAQS, LRTP and/or TIP.