ML16048A203

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Final Environmental Impact Report

ML16048A203
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	01/31/2004
From:	Marine Research Specialist (MRS)
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, San Luis Obispo County, CA
Shared Package
ML16048A230	List: DCL-15-142, License Renewal Feasibility Study DCL-2014-500, 2013 Annual Report on Discharge Monitoring ML16048A203 ML16048A204 ML16048A205 ML16048A206 ML16048A207 ML16048A208 ML16048A210 ML16048A211 ML16048A212 ML16048A213 ML16048A214 ML16048A215 ML16048A218 ML16048A219 ML16048A284 ML16048A286 ML16049A365 ML16049A366 ML16050A178 ML16050A180 ML16050A229 ML16050A291 ML16050A292 ML16050A294 ML16050A296 ML16050A297 ML16050A301
References
DCL-15-142, CAC MF4019, CAC MF4020 SCH 2002031155
Download: ML16048A203 (24)

Text

NOI-05

mllrs Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)

Final Environmental Impact Report I

Prepared for:

County of San Luis Obispo Department of Planning and Building County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Prepared by:

Marine Research Specialists (MRS) 3140 Telegraph Road, Suite A Ventura, California 93003 January 2004 SCH # 2002031155

mrs Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)

Final Environmental Impact Report

~frxI Prepared for:

County of San Luis Obispo Department of Planning and Building County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Prepared by:

Marine Research Specialists (MRS) 3140 Telegraph Road, Suite A Ventura, California 93003 January 2004 SCH # 2002031155

Table of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary Impact Summary Tables 1.0 Introduction and Background...........................................

1-1 1.1 Introduction.................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Background............................................................................ 1-1 1.2.1 Spent Fuel Storage Need............................................................. 1-1 1.2.2 Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982....................................... 1-3 1.3 Proposed Project Summary........................................................... 1-4 1.4 Objectives of the Project............................................................. 1-6 1.5 Agency Use of this Document....................................................... 1-6 1.6 ElR Contents................................................................................... 1-7 2.0 Project Description.......................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Background........................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Project Objectives............................................................................. 2-2 2.3 Project Location............................................................................... 2-2 2.4 Current Operations of the Project Facilities................................................. 2-4 2.5 Proposed Project Description.................................................................. 2-7 2.5.1 Description of the Proposed I SFSI Design......................................... 2-7 2.5.1.1 Storage Pads Design............................................................. 2-7 2.5.1.2 Cask Transfer Facility (CTF)................................................... 2-9 2.5.1.3 Transportation System......................................................... 2-10 2.5.1.4 Fuel Assembly Storage Systems.............................................. 2-14 2.5.1.5 Other Areas..................................................................... 2-19 2.5.2 ISFSI Construction.................................................................. 2-21 2.5.2.1 Construction of the ISFSI Pads................................................ 2-21 2.5.2.2 Construction of the Patton Cove Bypass Road............................... 2-21 2.5.2.3 Disposal of ISFSI Excavation Spoils......................................... 2-22 2.5.2.4 Construction of the Cask Transfer Facility................................... 2-22 2.5.2.5 Construction Activities and Techniques...................................... 2-22 2.5.3 Project Life........................................................................... 2-24 2.5.4 Proposed ISFSI Operation.......................................................... 2-24 2.5.4.1 Operation Description.......................................................... 2-25 2.5.4.2 Maintenance Techniques...................................................... 2-26 2.5.4.3 Control of Nuclear Material................................................... 2-26 2.5.4.4 Storage, Waste Confinement, and Effluent Control......................... 2-26 2.5.4.5 Management Systems.......................................................... 2-27 2.5.5 Decommissioning................................................................... 2-27 Final iJanuary 2004

Table of Contents 2.6 Project Schedule, Equipment and Personnel Requirements............................... 2-28 2.6.1 Project Schedule....................................................................... 2-29 2.6.2 Equipment and Personnel Requirements............................................ 2-30 3.0 Analysis of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed Project.........................

3-1 3.1 Drainage, Erosion, and Sedimentation.......................................................... 3-2 3.1.1 Environmental Setting................................................................. 3-2 3.1.1.1 Regional Overview................................................................. 3-2 3.1.1.2 Project Area........................................................................ 3-5 3.1.2 Regulatory Setting...................................................................... 3-9 3.1.2.1 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (C.W.C. Section 13000 et seq.;

C.C.R. Title 23, Chapter 3, Chapter 15)......................................... 3-9 3.1.2.2 California Coastal Act (P.R.C. 30000 et seq.)................................ 3-10 3.1.3 Significance Criteria................................................................

3-10 3.1.4 Impact Analysis for the Proposed Project.......................................... 3-10 3.1.5 Mitigation Monitoring Plan......................................................... 3-17 3.2 Geological Conditions....................................................................... 3-20 3.2.1 Environmental Setting.............................................................. 3-20 3.2.1.1 Topography.............................................

i........................ 3-20 3.2.1.2 Stratigraphy/S lope Stability.................................................... 3-23 3.2.1.3 Faulting/Seismicity............................................................. 3-35 3.2.2 Regulatory Setting................................................................... 3-55 3.2.2.1 The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972...................... 3-55 3.2.2.2 NRC Regulations, 10 CFR, Part 72.102 - Geological and Seismological Characteristics and Part 100 - Reactor Site Criteria, Subpart B - Evaluation Factors for Stationary Power Reactor Site Applications on or After January 10, 1997.................................................................. 3-55 3.2.2.3 The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (PRC. Sections 2690, Division 2, Chapter 7.8 and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Regulations (CCR, Title 14, Division 2, Chapter 8, Article 10)........................... 3-56 3.2.2.4 The California Coastal Act of 1976 (PRC Section 30000 et seq.).......... 3-56 3.2.3 Significance Criteria................................................................ 3-56 3.2.4 Impact Analysis for the Proposed Project......................................... 3-57 3.2.5 Mitigation Monitoring Plan......................................................... 3-65 3.3 Biological Resources........................................................................ 3-66 3.3.1 Environmental Setting.............................................................. 3-66 3.3.1.1 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitats............................................. 3-68 3.3.1.2 Wildlife Resources....................*.......................................... 3-71 3.3.1.3 Marine Resources.............................................................. 3-74 3.3.1.4 Sensitive Species............................................................... 3-77 3.3.2 Regulatory Setting.....................

............................................. 3-89 3.3.2.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders............................ 3-89 3.3.2.2 State Laws, Regulations and Policies......................................... 3-90 3.3.2.3 Local Laws, Regulations and Policies........................................ 3-92 Final ii January 2004 Final ii January 2004

Table of Contents 3.3.3 Significance Criteria................................................................ 3-92 3.3.4 Impact Analysis for the Proposed Project......................................... 3-92 3.3.5 Mitigation Monitoring Plan........................................................ 3-99 3.4 Noise........................................................................................ 3-102 3.4.1 Environmental Setting............................................................. 3-102 3.4.1.1 Definition...................................................................... 3-102 3.4.1.2 Effects on Wildlife............................................................ 3-102 3.4.1.3 Effects on Humans............................................................ 3-102 3.4.1.4 Background Noise Sources................................................... 3-103 3.4.2 Regulatory Setting................................................................. 3-107 3.4.2.1 Federal Jurisdiction........................................................... 3-108 3.4.2.2 State Jurisdiction.............................................................. 3-108 3.4.2.3 Local Jurisdiction - San Luis Obispo County................................... 3-109 3.4.3 Significance Criteria............................................................... 3-111 3.4.4 Proposed Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................. 3-111l 3.4.5 Mitigation.Monitoring Plan....................................................... 3-113 3.5 Transportation/Circulation................................................................. 3-114 3.5.1 Environmental Setting............................................................. 3-114 3.5.1.1 Roadway and Intersection Classification.................................... 3-114 3.5.2 Regulatory Setting................................................................. 3-124 3.5.3 Significance Criteria............................................................... 3-125 3.5.4 Impact Analysis for the Proposed Project........................................ 3-125 3.5.5 Mitigation Monitoring Plan........................................................ 3-128 3.6 Air Quality.................................................................................. 3-129 3.6.1 Environmental Setting............................................................. 3-129 3.6.1.1 Regional Overview........................................................... 3-129 3.6.1.2 Air Quality..................................................................... 3-130 3.6.1.3 Regional Air Emissions...................................................... 3-135 3.6.2 Regulatory Setting................................................................. 3-135 3.6.2.1 Federal Regulations........................................................... 3-135 3.6.2.2 State Regulations............................................................. 3-136 3.6.2.3 County Rules and Regulations............................................... 3-137 3.6.3 Significance Criteria............................................................... 3-13 7 3.6.4 Impact Analysis for the Proposed Project........................................ 3-13 9 3.6.5 Mitigation Monitoring Plan....................................................... 3-146 3.7 Visual and Aesthetic Resources..........

................................................ 3-150 3.7.1 Environmental Setting............................................................. 3-150 3.7.1.1 Characterization of Visual Resources....................................... 3-150 3.7.1.2 Project Area Visual Setting.................................................. 3-153 3.7.2 Regulatory Setting................................................................. 3-155 3.7.2.1 California Coastal Act........................................................ 3-155 3.7.2.2 San Luis Obispo County Local Coastal Program.......................... 3-156 3.7.3 Significance Criteria................................................................ 3-157 3.7.4 Impact Analysis for the Proposed Project........................................ 3-157 3.7.5 Mitigation Monitoring Plan....................................................... 3-163 Final iii January 2004

Table of Contents 3.8 Agricultural Resources...................................................................... 3-164 3.8.1 Environmental Setting............................................................. 3-164 3.8.1.1 The Agricultural Economy of San Luis Obispo County................... 3-164 3.8.2 Important Farmland in San Luis Obispo County................................ 3-166 3.8.2.1 Soils and Agricultural Suitability............................................ 3-166 3.8.3 Project Setting...................................................................... 3-169 3.8.4 Regulatory Setting................................................................. 3-174 3.8.5 Significance Criteria.....

......................................................... 3-175 3.8.6 Impact Analysis for the Proposed Project........................................ 3-176 3.8.7 Mitigation Monitoring Plan....................................................... 3-178 3.9 Cultural Resources.......................................................................... 3-179 3.9.1 Environmental Setting............................................................. 3-179 3.9.1.1 Archaeological Resources.................................................... 3-179 3.9.2 Regulatory Setting................................................................. 3-180 3.9.3 Significance Criteria............................................................... 3-18 1 3.9.4 Impact Analysis for the Proposed Project........................................ 3-182 3.9.5 Mitigation Monitoring Plan....................................................... 3-183 3.10 Paleontological Resources................................................................. 3-185 3.10.1 Environmental Setting.............................................................. 3-185 3.10.1.1 Paleontological Resource Terms............................................. 3-185 3.10.1.2 Paleontological Potential of Rock Units..................................... 3-186 3.10.1.3 Stratigraphy and Geology of the Paleontological Resources of the DCPP Area..................................................................... 3-187 3.10.1.4 Field Survey for Paleontological Resources.................................. 3-192 3.10.2 Regulatory Setting.................................................................. 3-195 3.10.2.1 California Coastal Act (1972)................................................ 3-196 3.10.2.2 California Environmental Quality Act (1976) and State Agency Guidelines..................................................................... 3-196 3.10.2.3 California Public Resources Code........................................... 3-196 3.10.3 Significance Criteria............................................................... 3-196 3.10.4 Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Project....................................... 3-197 3.10.5 Mitigation Monitoring Plan....................................................... 3-198 3.11 System Safety/Risk of Upset.............................................................. 3-199 3.11.1 Environmental Setting............................................................. 3-200 3.11.2 Regulatory Setting................................................................. 3-203 3.11.2.1 Federal Regulations........................................................... 3-203 3.11.2.2 State and County Regulations................................................ 3-204 3.11.3 Significance Criteria............................................................... 3-204 3.11.4 Impact Analysis for the Proposed Project........................................ 3-206 3.11.5 Mitigation Monitoring Plan....................................................... 3-252 4.0 Alternatives Analysis......................

4-1 4.1 Description of Alternatives........................................................

........... 4-2 4.1.1 No Project Alternative................................................................ 4-2 4.1.2 No Action Alternative................................................................ 4-7 4.1.3 Alternative Sites....................................................................... 4-8 Final iv January 2004

Table of Contents 4.1.3.1 Onsite Alternative Locations................................................... 4-8 4.1.3.20Offsite Alternatives............................................................. 4-10 4.1.4 Alternative Designs.................................................................. 4-11 4.1.4.1 Spent Fuel Rod Consolidation................................................. 4-11 4.1.4.2 Construction of aNew Storage Pool.......................................... 4-11 4.1.4.3 Accelerated Transfer of Spent Fuel from the Spent Fuel Pools to the ISFSI............................................................................ 4-12 4.2 Alternatives Screening Analysis............................................................ 4-13 4.2.1 Onsite Alternative Locations....................................................... 4-13 4.2.1.1 Location 1....................................................................... 4-13 4.2.1.2 Location 2........................................................................ 4-17 4.2.1.3 Location 3....................................................................... 4-18 4.2.1.4 Location4..................................

.................................... 4-18 4.2.1.5 Location 5....................................................................... 4-19 4.2.2 Alternative Designs.................................................................. 4-20 4.2.2.1 Construction of a New Storage Pool......................................... 4-20 4.2.2.2 Accelerated Transfer of Spent Fuel from the Spent Fuel Pools to the ISFSI............................................................................ 4-20 4.3 Environmental Analysis of Selected Alternatives.......................................... 4-24 4.3.1 No Project Alternative...........

i................................................... 4-24 4.3.1.1 Description of No Project Alternative........................................ 4-24 4.3.1.2 Environmental Analysis of the No Project Alternative...................... 4-28 4.3.2 Alternative Site for the ISFSI...........

i........................................... 4-33 4.3.2.1 Description of Alternative Site................................................ 4-33 4.3.2.2 Environmental Analysis of the Alternative Site............................. 4-36 4.3.3 Accelerated Transfer of Spent Fuel from the Spent Fuel Pools to the ISFSI.... 4-44 4.3.3.1 Description of the Alternative................................................. 4-44 4.3.3.2 Environmental Analysis of the Accelerated Transfer Alternative.......... 4-46 5.0 Cumulative Analysis.........................................................................

5-1 5.1 Cumulative Development Projects...........................................................

5-1 5.2 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts............................................................. 5-8 6.0 Environmentally Superior Alternative...................................................

6-1 6.1 Comparison of Proposed Project and Alternatives......................................... 6-1 6.1.1 Proposed Project vs. No Project Alternative........................................ 6-7 6.1.2 Proposed Project vs. Alternative Site for ISFSI at Parking Lot 7................. 6-7 6.1.3 Proposed Project vs. Accelerated Transfer Alternative............................ 6-8 6.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative....................................................... 6-9 7.0 Other CEQA Issues.......................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Growth Inducing Impacts..................................................................... 7-1 7.1.1 Removal of an Impediment to Growth.............................................. 7-1 7.1.2 Economic Growth.................................................................... 7-1 7.1.3 Precedent Setting Action............................................................. 7-2 7.1.4 Development of Open Space........................................................ 7-2 Final V

January 2004

Table of Contents 7.1.5 Conclusion............................................................................. 7-2 7.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes............................................ 7-2 8.0 Summary of Mitigation Measures..........................................................

8-1 Section 3.1, Drainage, Erosion, and Sedimentation................................................. 8-1 Section 3.2, Geological Resources......................................

• ............................. 8-3 Section 3.3, Biological Resources.................................................................... 8-4 Section 3.4, Noise...................................................................................... 8-5 Section 3.5, Transportation/Circulation.............................................................. 8-5 Section 3.6, Air Quality............................................................................... 8-6 Section 3.7, Visual and Aesthetic Resources........................................................ 8-8 Section 3.8, Agricultural Resources.................................................................. 8-8 Section 3.9, Cultural Resources...................................................................... 8-8 Section 3.10, Paleontological Resources............................................................. 8-9 Section 3.11, System Safety/Risk of Upset......................................................... 8-10 9.0 References..................................................................................... 9-1 10.0 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments...............................

10-1 10.1 Table of Contents.............................................................................. 10-1 10.2 Governmental Agencies Comments followed by Responses to Comments............. 10-4 10.3 Applicants Comments followed by Reponses to Comments............................ 10-34 10.4 Groups and Companies Comments followed by Responses to CommenLs...........10-104 10.5 Public Comments followed by Responses to Comments.............................. 10-17 1 Appendix A Project Description Supplemental Material Appendix B Air Quality Appendix C California Red-Legged Frog Survey Report Appendix D Notice of Preparation Appendix E Mitigation Monitoring Plan Appendix F List of Preparers and Agencies Contacted Appendix G List of Acronyms Appendix HI Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies List of Figures Figure 1-1 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Location............................................... 1-2 Figure 1-2 Proposed ISFSJ Location............................................................. 1-5 Figure 2-1 Project Location....................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-2 DCPP and Proposed ISFSI Plot Plan................................................ 2-5 Figure 2-3 Typical Cask Storage Pad (Schematic).............................................. 2-8 Figure 2-4 CTF Support Structure.............................................................. 2-11 Final vi Final viJanuary 2004

Table of Contents Figure 2-5 Figure 2-6 Figure 2-7 Figure 2-8 Figure 2-9 Figure 3.1-1 Figure 3.1-2 Figure 3.1-3 Figure 3.1-4 Figure 3.2-1 Figure 3.2-2 Figure 3.2-3 Figure 3.2-4 Figure 3.2-5 Figure 3.2-6 Figure 3.2-7 Figure 3.2-8 Figure 3.2-9 Figure 3.2-10 Figure 3.2-11 Figure 3.3-1 Figure 3.4-1 Figure 3.4-2 Figure 3.5-1 Figure 3.7-1 Figure 3.7-2 Figure 3.7-3 Figure 3.7-4 Figure 3.7-5 Figure 3.8-1 Figure 3.8-2 Figure 3.8-3 Figure 3.8-4 Figure 3.8-5 Figure 3.8-6 Figure 3.10-1 Figure 3.10-2 Figure 3.11-1 Figure 3.11I-2 Figure 3.11-3 Figure 3.11-4 Figure 3.11-5 Cask Transporter.................................................................... 2-12 Storage Cask Anchor Arrangement......................

......................... 2-15 Overpack Casks installed on a Pad................................................ 2-18 HI TRAC 125 Transfer Cask Physical Characteristics........................... 2-20 Simplified Schematic of the HI-STORM 100 System Operation................ 2-25 Diablo Canyon Creek Watershed.................................................... 3-3 Project Area Watersheds............................................................. 3-4 Soils Map.............................................................................. 3-6 Proposed Site Drainage................................................

............. 3-13 Regional Topography............................................................... 3-21 Slope Map............................................................................. 3-22 Geologic Map......................................................................... 3-25 Geologic Cross Section - Proposed ISFSI and CTF Sites........................ 3-26 Geologic Cross Section - Proposed Transport Route............................. 3-33 Regional Structure Map............................................................. 3-36 Regional Fault Map.................................................................. 3-38 San Luis/Pismo Block of the Los Osos Domain.................................. 3-41 Earthquake Focal Mechanism Plots................................................ 3-42 Hosgri Fault Zone near DCPP...................................................... 3-43 Regional Historical Earthquakes since 1830, Greater than 5.0................... 3-48 Aerial Photograph of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant and Proposed ISFSI and Soil Disposal Sites...................................................... 3-67 Common Environmental Noise Levels........................................... 3-104 Baseline Noise Monitoring Locations............................................ 3-105 Map of Major Transportation Routes in Proposed Project Area............... 3-117 Viewing Points...................................................................... 3-158 View of DCPP from the North (Viewing Point 1)............................... 3-159 View of DCPP from the North-west (Viewing Point 2)........................ 3-160 View of DCPP from the West (Viewing Point 3)............................... 3-16 1 View of DCPP from the Southwest (Viewing Point 4)......................... 3-162 Crop Values in San Luis Obispo County (1993-2001)......................... 3-165 Important Farmland, SLO County................................................ 3-168 Soil Types in the Vicinity of DCPP.............................................. 3-170 Important Farmland in the Vicinity of DCPP.................................... 3-17 1 Crop Patterns in the Vicinity of DCPP........................................... 3-172 Examples of Agricultural Resources on PG&E Holdings...................... 3-173 Stratigraphic Section of Rock Units near DCPP................................. 3-19 1 Schematic Cross-Section of a Marine Continental Terrace near the Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Coasts............................................. 3-193 Aerial Photograph of DCPP....................................................... 3-23 7 Time Lapse of Simulated Aircraft Strike on the DCPP ISFSI.................. 3-23 8 Comparative Size of ISFSI to Other Structures Subject to Terrorist Attack... 3-239 Relative Scale of Uninhabitable Zone Following a Worst-Case Catastrophic Cask Failure and Fire (Thompson 2002)......................................... 3-24 1 Radiological Consequences of Catastrophic Cask Failures and Releases -

Standard Gaussian Model Approach............................................. 3-242 Final vii Fina viiJanuary 2004

Table of Contents Figure 3.11-6 Radiological Consequences of Catastrophic Cask Failures and Releases -

LLNL Hotspot Model Approach.................................................. 3-243 Figure 3.11-7 Areas Vulnerable to Radiological Consequences Greater than 25 remn -

Scenario 1........................................................................... 3-247 Figure 3.11-8 Areas Vulnerable to Radiological Consequences Greater than 25 rem -

Scenario 2........................................................................... 3-248 Figure 3.11-8 Simulated Offshore View of the DCPP ISFSI from the South................. 3-250 Figure 3.11-9 Simulated Offshore View of the DCPP ISFSI from the Southwest............ 3-250 Figure 3.11-10OSimulated Offshore View of the DCPP ISFSI from the West.................. 3-251 Figure 4-1 Location of Alternative Sites at DCPP............................................ 3-4-8 Figure 5-la Map of Cumulative Projects - Avila Beach........................................ 5-6 Figure 5-lb Map of Cumulative Projects - Avila Beach and the Surrounding Area.......... 5-7 List of Tables Table 2.1 T'able 2.2 Table 2.3

,Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6 Table 3.2.1 Table 3.3.1 Table 3.3.2 Table 3.3.3 Table 3.3.4 Table 3.3.5 Table 3.4.1 Table 3.4.2 Table 3.4.3 Table 3.4.4 Table 3.4.5 Table 3.4.6 Table 3.4.7 Table 3.5.1 Table 3.5.2 Table 3.5.3 Table 3.5.4 Table 3.5.5 Physical Characteristics of THE HI-STORM MPC*............:................. 2-17 Physical Characteristics of the HI-STORM l00SA Overpacka................. 2-18 Physical Characteristics of the HI-Trac 125d Transfer Cask*................... 2-19 Best Management Practices to be Implemented During Construction.......... 2-22 Spent Nuclear Fuel Loading, Transporting and Installation Steps and Durations.............................................................................. 2-30 Estimated Equipment Needs for the Project....................................... 2-31 Earthquake Recurrence Intervals................................................... 3-52 Native Terrestrial Habitat Types on the PG&E Diablo Canyon Lands.......... 3-68 Common and Scientific Names of Plant Species Discussed in Text............ 3-69 Common and Scientific Names of Wildlife Species Discussed in Text......... 3-71 Sensitive Plant Species Potentially Occurring on the Diablo Canyon Property.........

..................................................................... 3-77 Sensitive Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Area........... 3-81 Sensitive RecePtors................................................................ 3-106 Baseline Noise Levels in the Study Area......................................... 3-106 Noise Levels Due To Traffic...................................................... 3-107 FHWA Land Use Noise Levels for Planning Federal Highway Projects.....

3-108 Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure - Stationary Noise Sources a.......... 3-109 Transportation Source Noise Exposure Guidelines.............................. 3-109 Construction Noise Experienced at nearest Sensitive Receptor................ 3-112 LOS Screening Classifications and Roadway Daily Volumes................. 3-115 Project Area Routes - Current, Future and Future with Project Construction Traffic - Roadways LOS Classifications.......................... 3-12 1 Truck Traffic Volumes............................................................ 3-123 Future Roadway Projects in the Project Area.................................... 3-124 Significance Criteria............................................................... 3-125 Final viii January 2004 Final viii January 2004

Table of Contents Table 3.6.1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants........................................................................... 3-132 Table 3.6.2 Ambient Air Quality Summary for Project Area - 1999 to 2001...

..3-13 3 Table 3.6.3 Attainment Status of SLO County, All Monitoring Stations.................... 3-134 Table 3.6.4 Regional Emissions Inventory (Tons/Year) for SLO County................... 3-135 Table 3.6.5 San Luis Obispo County Mitigation Thresholds for Construction............. 3-138 Table 3.6.6 SLO APCD Significance Thresholds for Operations........................... 3-138 Table 3.6.7 Summary of Construction Emissions*........................................... 3-140 Table 3.6.8 Summary of Operational Emissions.............................................. 3-145 Table 3.7.1 Visual Modification Class (VMCs) Definitions................................. 3-15 1 Table 3.7.2 Indicators of Visual Sensitivity................................................... 3-152 Table 3.8.1 Top Twenty Value Crops for SLO County, 2002............................... 3-164 Table 3.8.2 Crop Values 1993-2002, SLO County........................................... 3-165 Table 3.8.3 Changes in the Acreage of Important Farmland, SLO County 1998-2000....3-167 Table 3.8.4 Important Farmland Acreage on PG&E Holdings............................... 3-169 Table 3.8.5 Potential Value of Crop Production on PG&E Holdings........................ 3-169 Table 3.10.1 Inventory of Major Fossil Sites Near or In the Vicinity of Diablo Canyon Power Plant......................................................................... 3-189 Table 3.10.2 Paleontological Potential of Rock Units, Diablo Canyon Power Plant........ 3-190 Table 3.11.1 Dose Limits per Year.............................................................. 3-206 Table 3.11.2 Total Annual Offsite Collective Dose (mrem) At The Site Boundary And Nearest Resident From The Diablo Canyon JSFSI.............................. 3-209 Table 3.11.3 Summary of Radiological Consequences of Catastrophic Cask Failures Using Standard Gaussian Model.................................................. 3-244 Table 3.11.4 Summary of Radiological Consequences of Catastrophic Cask Failures Using the LLNL Hotspot Model.................................................. 3-244 Table 4.1 Applicability of the Proposed Project Objectives to the Alternatives............ 4-4 Table 4.2 Screening of Alternative JSFSI Sites at DCPP.................................... 4-14 Table 4.3 Screening of Alternative Designs.................................................. 4-21 Table 4.4 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Fuel Assembly Discharge (Estimated Schedule).4-26 Table 5.1 Projects that Could Have Cumulative Impacts with the Proposed Project Construction Phase 1.................

5-4 Table 5.2 Projects that Could have Cumulative Impacts with Proposed Project Operation Phase or Construction Phase 2....................................................... 5-5 Table 6.1 Comparison of Impacts from Proposed Project and Alternatives by Issue Area.................................................................................... 6-2 Table 6.2 Comparison of the Superior Alternative by Issue Area............................ 6-5 Table 7.1 Summary of Potentially Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources.............................................................................. 7-3 Final ix January 2004 Final ix January 2004

3.4 Noise 3.4 Noise This section describes the baseline noise in the vicinity of the proposed project and the project's potential impacts to noise. The analysis is based on existing noise data, a review of local and.

regional noise contours, and discussions with local agencies.

3.4.1 Environmental Setting 3.4.1.1 Definition Noise is defined as unwanted sound that is heard by people or wildlife and that interferes with normal activities or otherwise diminishes the quality, of the environment. Sources of noise may be transient (e.g., the passing of a train or aircraft through the area) or continuous (e.g., the hum of distant traffic or the operation of air conditioning equipment). Sources of noise may have a broad range of sounds and may be generally nondescript or have a specific, readily identifiable sound, such as a car horn. The sources of noise may also be steady or impulsive. These characteristics all affect human perception of the acoustic environment.

Noise is usually measured as sound level on a logarithmic decibel (dB) scale, with the frequency spectrum adjusted by the A-weighting network. The dB is a unit division on a logarithmic scale that represents the intensity of sound relative to the reference intensity near the threshold of normal human hearing. The A-weighting network is a filter that approximates the response of the human ear at moderate sound levels. The resulting unit of measure is the A-weighted decibel, or dBA.

To analyze the overall noisiness of an area, noise events are combined for an instantaneous value or averaged over a specific time period (e.g., one hour, multiple hours, and 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />). The time-weighted measure is referred to as Equivalent Sound Level (Leq). The equivalent sound level is defined as the same amount of sound energy averaged over a given time period. The percentage of time that a given sound level is exceeded can also be represented. For example, L10 is a sound level that is exceeded 10% of the time over a specified period.

3.4.1.2 Effects on Wildlife Wildlife response to noise is dependent not only on the magnitude but also the characteristic of the sound, or the sound frequency distribution. Wildlife is affected by a broader range of sound frequencies than humans. Noise is known to affect an animal's physiology and behavior, and chronic noise-induced stress adversely affects an animal's energy budget, reproductive success, and long-term survival (Arthur D. Little, Inc. [ADL] 2002).

3.4.1.3 Effects on Humans Human response to noise is similarly dependent on both the magnitude and sound frequency distribution. The human ear is generally more susceptible to higher frequency sounds than lower frequency sounds. Thus, A-weighting adjusts noise measurements to account for this difference Final 3-102 Final3-102January 2004

3.4 Noise by ignoring sounds with a frequency below 10 cycles per second and assigning maximum weighting for sounds with a frequency in the 2,000 to 5,000 cycles-per-second range.

Human response to noise depends on factors that include time of day and expectations based on location. For example, a person sleeping at home might react differently to the sound of a car horn than to the same sound while driving during the day. The regulations account for these factors by using overall noise ratings such as Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and the Day-Night Average Noise Level (Ldn) that incorporate penalties for noise occurring at night.

The Ldn rating is an average of noise over a 24-hour period in which noises occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. are increased by 10 dBA. The CNEL is similar but also adds a weighting of 5 dBA to noises that occur between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Average noise levels over daytime hours only (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) are represented as Ld and nighttime noises as Ln. Figure 3.4-1 is a scale showing typical noise levels encountered in common daily activities.

The effects of noise are considered in two ways: how a proposed project may increase existing noise levels and affect surrounding land uses; and how a proposed land use may be affected by existing surrounding land uses. The SLO County General Plan Noise Element focuses on particular types of land uses when measuring the effects of noise for future development purposes.

3.4.1.4 Background Noise Sources The proposed project site is located in a remote, rural, coastal area where ambient noise ranges from 55 and 65 dBA Leq. The principal sources of noise include the ocean surf and DCPP. The access routes to the power plant are adjacent to recreational areas, residences, and businesses and subject mainly to noise from vehicle traffic. These traffic noise levels are detailed in the Noise Element of the SLO County General Plan and noise contours generated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

Sensitive Receptors Land uses that are listed in the San Luis Obispo County General Plan Noise Element are considered when measuring the effects of noise. "Sensitive receptors" are land use areas that include residences, recreational areas, transient lodging (hotels, motels, etc.), hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent hospitals, schools, libraries, houses of worship, and public assembly places.

The nearest noise-sensitive receptor to DCPP is a residence located 1.5 miles north by northwest of the ISFSI site. The majority of sensitive receptors are approximately 4 miles east and 10 miles south of the JSFSJ. Sensitive receptors along the travel corridor lie within the community of Avila Beach and along Avila Beach Drive and San Luis Bay Drive. These are shown in Table 3.4.1.

Final 3-103 Final3-103January 2004

3.4 Noise Figure 3.4-1 Common Environmental Noise Levels Common Outdoor

[Noise Level Common Indoor Noise Levels DBA)

Noise Levels Jet Flyover at 1,000 ft Gas Lawnmower at 3 ft Diesel Truck at 50 ft Noisy Urban Daytime Gas Lawnmower at 100 ft Commercial Area Heavy Traffic at 300 ft Quiet Urban Daytime Quiet Urban Nighttime Quiet Suburban Nighttime Quiet Rural Nighttime 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 Inside Subway Train (New York)

Food Blender at 3 ft Garbage Disposal at 3 ft Shouting at 3 ft Vacuum Cleaner at 10 fi Normal Speech at 3 fi Large Business Office Dishwasher Next Room Small Theater, Large Conference Room (Background)

Library Bedroom at Night Concert Hall (Background)

Broadcast and Recording Studio Threshold of Hearing Rock Band Source: ADL 2002.

Source: ADL 2002.

Final 3-104 January 2004 Final 3-104 January 2004

3.4 Noise Figure 3.4-2 Baseline Noise Monitoring Locations Final 3-105 Final3-105January 2004

3.4 Noise Table 3.4.1 Sensitive Receptors Sensitive Receptor Distance from Noise Source, ft Noise Source Lodging/Businesses in Avila Beach 200 Avila Beach Drive Recreational beach areas 20 Avila Beach Drive Residences in Avila Beach 20-100 Avila Beach Drive Avila Hot Springs and RV Park 50 Avila Beach Drive Sycamore Hot Springs 150 Avila Beach Drive San Luis Bay Golf Course Club House 700 Avila Beach Drive Residences near San Luis Bay Drive 100 San Luis Bay Drive Closest Residence to DCPP Site 7,920 DCPP Construction Site Source: ADL 1998 and Marine Research Specialists 2002.

Background noise levels in the project area and at sensitive receptors were obtained both from the Noise Element Technical Reference Document, in-field noise monitoring conducted during the Avila Beach Cleanup BIR (ADL 1998), and the Applicant's Environmental[ Report. Noise data for the Avila Beach project was obtained by monitoring noise levels for 10 minutes during the day and night at 12 locations in the Avila Beach area. Figure 3.4-2 above shows the locations of background noise monitoring. The data collected included Leq, maximum levels and minimum levels. Noise sources associated with the maximum reading were generally produced by ocean surf and traffic on nearby roads. Background noise levels measured in the study area are shown in Table 3.4.2.

Table 3.4.2 Baseline Noise Levels in the Study Area Noise Level dBA Day

-Night Location Leg Lniax Lmin Leq

-L...

1. DCPP Cooling Pond Fence Linea 56

2. DCPP Under 500 kV Towera 58

3. DCPP, Corner of Reservoir and Tribar Roadsa 57

4. DCPP Avila Gatea 61

5. Beach, south of San Juanb 65.2 81.1 56.7 64.4 72.2 49.6

6. Beach, south of San Miguelb 67.7 83.0 59.6 66.3 72.0 49.8

7. Beach, south of San Antoniob 66.8 74.4 61.4 67.8 74.5 54.4

8. Corner San Juan and First Streetsb 59.0 74.9 47.3 54.8 78.3 42.9

9. Corner San Miguel and First Streetsb 50.0 61.3 42.7

10. Corner San Miguel and Front Streetsb 61.7 79.2 53.6 58.3 69.8 47.3

11. Corner San Antonio and First Streetsb 54.1 75.4 44.5 46.0 54.3 40.4

12. San Miguel Street across from Civic Centerb 58.9 75.5 44.0 45.4 57.2 41.9

13. Corner San Antonio and San Luis Streetsb 64.1 82.6 41.6 46.3 69.0 30.7

14. Corner San Luis Bay Drive and Avila Beach Driveb 70.4' 88.8 44.0 57.0 79.4 29.9

15. Bellevue-Santa Fe School parking lotb 52.9 67.9 38.0 40.3 54.7 31.6

16. Sycamore Hot Springs Resort parking lotb 54.6 66.4 42.3 48.3 66.3 34.4 Sources: apG&E 2002 and 'Arthur D. Little 1998.

Existing Vehicular Traffic Noise Levels Traffic noise levels for the principal transportation routes are given in Table 3.4.3. These roadway noise contours were modeled for the Avila Beach Cleanup EIR (ADL 1998), using the Final 3-106 Final3-106January 2004

3.4 Noise Caltrans Sound-32 Traffic Noise prediction model based on the Federal Highway Administration's FHWA-RD-77-108 report. The traffic and noise conditions for the Avila Beach area during the proposed project construction and operation are expected to be similar. The roads selected were those identified in the Transportation/Circulation section (Section 3.5). No topographic considerations were taken (e.g., interference from buildings, hills) and hard site attenuation (or 3.0 dBA loss per doubling of distance from source to receiver which is typically applied to hard packed or paved areas) was assumed. Traffic volumes less than 2,000 ADT typically do not generate a 60 dBA CNIEL contour under normal traffic conditions.

Table 3.4.3 Noise Levels Due To Traffic

~Distance to Noise Level, Ft Existing dBA Future dBA SRoad 70 L

65 I

60 70 65 I

60 Avila Beach Drive 48 103 222 70 151 325 San Luis Street 8

I 18 I

38 13 28 61 San Luis Bay Drive 25 53 114 42 90 193 Highway 101 212 457 986 300 645 1,391 Source: SLO 1992a in ADL 1998.

Direction, Terrain and Building Effects Noise impacts are generally calculated based on a free-field condition. However, some noise effects are directional in nature, and the sound spreads in only one direction. This is described by a directivity factor wherein the higher the directivity factor, the more concentrated the sound energy in a certain direction.

Terrain also affects the propagation of sound. Hilly terrain or soft surfaces can absorb sound energy and cause fewer noise impacts at the same distance. Similarly, buildings and walls can deflect the sound energy and cause a significantly varying noise field within a short distance.

Weather conditions and altitude can also affect the propagation of sound. Increased temperature or altitude can increase the propagation of sound energy as less energy is absorbed by the atmosphere.

Vibration Vibrations are caused by some of the same activities as noise. Instead of being transmitted through the air, vibrations are transmitted through solid matter, such as the earth.. Vibrations are perceived through touch rather than hearing. Because soils and other solid materials have varying transmission properties, the effects of vibrations differ widely from location to location.

Vibrations are measured in meters per second squared (m/s2), which is a unit of acceleration.

3.4.2 Regulatory Setting Noise is regulated at the Federal, State, and Local levels through regulations, policies, and/or Local policies. Local policies are commonly adaptations of Federal and State guidelines, based on prevailing Local conditions or special requirements. These guidelines have been developed at the Federal level by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the FHWA, and the Final 3-107 January 2004 Final 3-107 January2004

3.4 Noise Department of Transportation (DOT) and at the State level by CalTrans and the now defunct California Office of Noise Control.

3.4.2.1 Federal Jurisdiction Noise The FHWA has established traffic noise design levels for use in the planning and design of federally funded highway projects (Program Manual, Volume 7, Chapter 7). These are based on hourly Leq or hourly L10 levels for interior and exterior exposure of surrounding land uses. These levels are based on the category of activity through which the freeway passes. These categories range from A, for areas of extraordinary significance, to E for interior noise impacts as described below. Category D is applicable to undeveloped lands and has no specific Leq or L10 value.

Table 3.4.4 FHWA Land Use Noise Levels for Planning Federal Highway Projects Category category Description Leq (dBA)

L1 o (dBA)

A Tracts of land in which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary 57 60 significance. May include parks, open spaces, or historic districts.

B Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, and other parks. Also, 67 70 residences, hotels/motels, churches, libraries, and hospitals.

C Developed lands.

72 75 E

Residences, hotels/motels, churches, libraries, and hospitals.

52 (interior) 55 (interior)

Under the authority of the Noise Control Act of 1972, the EPA has established noise emission criteria and testing methods (40 CFR Chapter 1, Subpart Q). These criteria apply to interstate rail carriers and a limited number of construction and transportation machinery.

The DOT has established allowable noise levels for motor vehicles (49 CFR Chapter III, Part 325). These standards address measurement protocols for measuring highway noise, instrumentation and stationary testing procedures. In addition, the Department of Defense has established noise compliance requirements.

Vibration The U.S. Bureau of Mines has identified acceptable maximum transverse ground velocity levels, which set the maximum peak particle velocity as a function of frequency. The Bureau of Mines recommends a "safe blasting limit" of 2.0 inches per second as a damage threshold. At this level, the probability of damage was observed to be less than 5%. A recommended annoyance peak velocity threshold of 0.4 inches per second was seen to cause complaints by roughly 8% of the affected population.

3.4.2.2 State Jurisdiction Noise standards have been determined by the requirements of Section 65302(f) of the California Government Code. The California Administrative Code, Title 4, which applies to airports operating under permit from the CalTrans Division of Aeronautics, defines a noise-impacted zone as any residential or other noise-sensitive use with CNEL 65 and above. The California Final 3-108 Final3-108January 2004

3.4 Noise Administrative Code, Title 2, establishes CNEL 45 as the maximum allowable indoor noise level resulting from exterior noise sources for multi-family residences.

The California Streets and Highways Code, Section 216 (Control of Freeway Noise in School Classrooms) requires, in general, that CalTrans abate noise to 55 dBA, L10, or 52 dBA, Leq or less. CalTrans Policy and Procedure Memorandum P74-47 (Freeway Traffic Noise Reduction, September 24, 1974) outlines the CalTrans policy and responsibilities related to transportation noise. In the California Government Code, Section 65302, CalTrans is also required to provide cities and counties with a noise contour map along state highways. The State Motor Vehicle Code includes regulation(s) related to the selling and use of vehicles that do not meet specified noise limits.

3.4.2.3 Local Jurisdiction - San Luis Obispo County Noise The Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of the Noise Element of the SLO County General Plan require that major noise sources and areas containing noise sensitive land uses be identified and quantified by preparing generalized noise exposure contours for current and projected conditions. The maximum dBA for stationary noise sources at a property line is 70 during the daytime and 65 during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.), with hourly equivalent sound levels of 50 and 45 dBA, respectively, as shown in Table 3.4.5.

Table 3.4.5 Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure - Stationary Noise Sources a Daytime - 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. (dBA)

Nighttimeb - 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.

_(dBA)

Hourly Leq 50 45_______________

Maximum level 70 65 Maximum level - Impulsive 65 60 Noise____________________________________

Notes:

a. As determined at the property line of the receiving land use. When~ determining the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures, the standards may be applied on the receptor side of noise barriers or other property line noise mitigation measures.

b. Applies only where the receiving land use operates or is occupied during nighttime hours.

Source: SLO County Noise Elenient I, 1992 (SLO 1992a).

The SLO County Noise Element also establishes land use compatibility guidelines as indicated below in Table 3.4.6 for transportation source activities. The guideline levels are a function of the sensitive receptor land use and indoor or outdoor receptors.

Table 3.4.6 Transportation Source Noise Exposure Guidelines STransportation Source: Maximum Allowable Noise Level Receiving Outdoor Activity Indoor Activity Indoor Activity Land Use Ldfl (dBA)

Loa (dBA)

Max hour Leg (dBA)

Residential, hotels, motels 60 45-Public assembly and entertainment

-=35 Final 3-109 January 2004

3.4 Noise Table 3.4.6 Transportation Source Noise Exposure Guidelines Transportation Source: Maximum Allowable Noise Level Receiving Outdoor Activity Indoor Activity Indoor Activity Land Use Ldn1 (dBA)

Ldn (dBA)

Max hour Leq (dBA)

Offices 60

__________45 Churches, meeting halls

-_____-_____45 Schools, libraries, museums

-______-______45 Outdoor sports and recreation 70 Source: SL0 1992a.

The Noise Element of the General Plan declares the following guideline:

"The existing or projected future noise exposure at the exterior of buildings which will contain noise-sensitive uses or within proposed outdoor activity areas (other than outdoor sports and recreation uses) does not exceed 65 dB Ldn (or CNEL) prior to mitigation. For outdoor sports and recreation uses, the existing or projected future noise exposure may not exceed 75 dB Ld, (or CNEL) prior to mitigation. "

Policy No. 3.3.3 of the Noise Element states:

"Noise created by new transportation noise sources, including roadway improvement projects, shall be mitigated so as not to exceed the levels specified in [Table 3.4. 6]

within outdoor activity areas and interior spaces of existing noise-sensitive uses."

Policy No. 3.3.5 of the Noise Element states:

"Noise created by new proposed stationary noise sources or existing stationary noise sources which undergo modifications that may increase noise levels shall be made as follows and shall be the responsibility of the developer or the stationary noise source:

"... b) Noise levels shall be reduced to or below the noise level standards in

[Table 3.4.5] where the stationary noise source will expose an existing noise-sensitive use... to noise levels which exceed the standards in [Table 3.4.5]. When the affected noise-sensitive land use is Outdoor Sports and Recreation, the noise level standards in

[Table 3.4.5] shall be increased by 10 dB. "

The SLO County Code Coastal Zone Ordinance sections 23.06.040 through 060 detail requirements related to noise standards, exterior and interior noise level standards, measurement, vibration and exceptions. The noise standards are "intended to protect persons from excessive noise levels, which are detrimental to the public health, welfare and safety and contrary to the public interest". Standard 23.06.044 specifies that "No person shall create any noise or allow the creation of any noise... which causes the exterior noise level when measured at a... noise-sensitive land uses... to exceed the noise level standards' defined as 50 dbA Leq daytime (7 am to 10 pmo) or 45 dBA Leq nighttime with a maximum level of 70 dbA daytime or 65 dbA nighttime.

Section 23.06.042 defines an exception to the above standard for construction, provided such activities do not take place before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. any day except Saturday or Sunday, or before 8:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday.

Final 3-110 January 2004 Final 3-110 January 2004

.i 3.4 Noise Vibration The Noise Element, which is used for the future development, does not specify vibration standards; however, San Luis Obispo Land Use Ordinance 23.06.060 establishes vibration standards (the Ordinance is typically used for enforcement purposes). It states that any land use conducted in or within one-half mile of an urban or village reserve line is to be operated to not produce detrimental earth-borne vibrations perceptible at the lot line for a residential or office source or the boundary of the industrial category for an industrial source.

Exceptions to the standard include construction between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and noise generated from moving sources such as trucks or railroads.

3.4.3 Significance Criteria There are two criteria for judging noise impacts. First, noise levels for the proposed projects must comply with relevant Federal, State, or Local standards or regulations. Noise impacts to the surrounding community from future developments are governed by the Noise Element of the SLO County General Plan. A noise impact that exceeds the adopted Noise Element policies or standards in magnitude, timing, or duration would be considered significant.

The second criterion for measuring project impact is the increase in noise level above the baseline level as a result of a new noise source. The degree of impact is difficult to quantify due to the highly subjective character of individual reactions to changes in noise. Most people begin to notice changes in environmental noise levels at approximately 5 dBA. Typically, changes in noise level less than 5 dBA cannot definitively be considered an adverse impact. For noise changes greater than 5 dBA, it is difficult to quantify the impact beyond recognizing that greater noise changes would result in the greater impacts.

In community noise impact analysis, long-term noise increases of 5 to 10 dBA are considered to have "some impact." Noise level increases of more than 10 dBA are generally considered severe.

In the case of short term noise increases, such as those from construction activities, the 10 dBA threshold between "some" and "severe" is replaced with a criterion of 15 dBA. These noise-averaged thresholds should be lowered when the noise level fluctuates, when the noise has an irritating character such as considerable high frequency energy, or if it is accompanied by subsonic vibration. In these cases, the impact must be individually estimated.

3.4.4 Proposed Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section characterizes the noise impacts generated by the DCPP project. Impacts fr'om noise-generating activities would occur along the unpopulated coastline north of San Luis Obispo Bay area and along ground transportation routes used for the proposed project.

Noise impacts are primarily associated with construction activities, including concrete batch plant operations, earth-moving equipment, and trucking of equipment and materials along area roadways.

Only minimal noise impacts would be associated with operations after construction activities are completed. These would be in the form of occasional trucks de~livering overapcks to the site along area roadways.

Final 3-111 Final3-111January 2004

h 3.4 Noise Noise generated by construction of the ISFSI would result.in increased ambient noise levels.

This increase would be limited to the daytime hours and would be limited to the duration of the construction phases of the project. An estimated workforce of 15 people would be utilized during construction of the JSFSI.

The closest residence is 1.5 miles north by northwest of the proposed ISFSI location..

Commercial areas are more than 5 miles from the proposed ISFSI location. As shown below in Table 3.4.7, construction noise would not be audible at these locations. Noise levels will increase during the period of construction from the existing background sound level of 56 dBA to approximately 58 dBA at the sensitive receptors. It is important to note that the :noise due to the construction activities would not exceed the background noise levels at the sensitive receptors.

Complying with all applicable OSHTA noise regulations will ensure that the impact on construction workers is similar to many other construction projects that routinely take place.

• Table 3.4.7 Construction Noise Experienced at nearest Sensitive Receptor Background Noise Levels 56 56 56 Time Reference Sound Level Sound Generating distance at reference Distance to Level at Total Total Peak Noise from noise

'distance receptor distance TotalIDay Evening Night Equipment Number During Day source (ft)

(dBA)

(ft)

(dBA)

Energy Energy Energy Crane 2

0.50 50 85 7920 41 1.3E+04 Concrete Truck 2

0.50 50 81 7920 37 5.0E+03 Concrete Plant 1

1.00 50 95 7920 51 1.3E+05 Excavator 2

0.75 50 89 7920 45 4.7E+04 Backhoe 1

0.75 50 86 7920 42 1.2E+04 Bulldozer/Grader 1

1.00 50 80 7920 36 4.0E+03 Welding Machine 2

0.50 50 76 7920 32 1.6E+03 Water Truck 1

0.25 50 77 7920 33 5.0E+02 Total 2.09E+05 0.00E+i00 0.00E+003 Total dBA without background 53 0

0 Total dBA with background and CNEL correction 58 61 66 Change in dBA from baseline 2

0 0

Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures proposed.

Residual Impact The impact would be considered insignificant (Class III).

Final 3-112 Final3-112January 2004

3.4 Noise Impact Impact.

Impact Description Classification N.2 Increased traffic during construction would expose sensitive receptors along Avila Class III Beach Drive and San Luis Bay Drive to increased noise.

Based on calculations of project traffic from Section 3.5, Transportation/Circulation, project traffic would raise ambient noise levels by more than 5 dBA for only one sensitive receptor along the travel route under the worst noise scenario: residences along Avila Beach Drive by 9 dBA. Recreational beaches along Avila Beach Drive could experience insignificant noise increases of 4 dBA. Because this short-lived noise increases would occur only during the construction phases, the impact would be adverse but not significant.

Mitigation Measures N-i Provide advance notice about project construction to residents in sensitive receptor areas in Avila Beach by mail and newspaper. The announcements shall state when construction will be scheduled. It shall also provide tips on reducing noise intrusion (e.g. closing windows facing the travel routes).

Residual Impact Noise increases from project traffic would be short-lived, the mitigation measure further reduces severity of the noise impacts, and therefore the impacts would be insignificant (Class III).

3.4.5 Mitigation Monitoring Plan Party

Responsible Mitigation Method of Timing of For Measure Plan Requirements and Timing Verification Verification Verification N-i Provide advance notice about project Receipt of Prior to San Luis Obispo construction to residents in sensitive receptor mailing list, construction County areas in Avila Beach by mail and newspaper.

newspaper, and Department of The announcements shall state when mailing Planning and construction will be scheduled. It shall also Building.

provide tips on reducing noise intrusion (e.g.

closing windows facing the travel routes).

Final 3-113 Final3-113January 2004