13 - Air QualityDEIS 13-1 9/12/2018
Chapter 13: Air Quality
13.1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This Chapter analyzes the potential for the Proposed Project to impact ambient air quality from stationary sources (e.g., fossil fuel-fired equipment) and from mobile sources (i.e., traffic generated by the Proposed Action). As such, these analyses address the potential for the Proposed Action to have one or more significant adverse environmental impacts that were identified in the Lead Agency’s Positive Declaration (see Appendix A-5). The Proposed Project would consist of one new building—a three- and four-story Independent Living (IL) facility in the center of the Site and a four-story Assisted Living (AL) facility in the northeast of the Site connected by a one-story portion—and 24 two-bedroom residential townhouses in the western portion of the Site. For purposes of analyzing the worst-case impacts to air quality, this analysis conservatively assumes that the newly constructed multifamily residential buildings would utilize natural gas-fired heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems.
In addition to air quality impacts generated by stationary sources, the Proposed Project would result in Project-generated traffic that would affect traffic conditions within the area of the Site (see Chapter 12, “Traffic and Transportation”). The potential for mobile source air quality
impacts from the Proposed Project was analyzed using the screening procedures found in the New York State Department of Transportation’s (NYSDOT) The Environmental Manual (TEM).
State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) regulations state that the significance of a
predicted consequence of a project (i.e., whether it is material, substantial, large, or important) should be assessed in connection with its setting (e.g., urban or rural), probability of occurrence, duration, irreversibility, geographic scope, magnitude, and number of people affected. In terms of the magnitude of air quality impacts, any action predicted to increase the concentration of a criteria air pollutant to a level that would exceed the concentrations defined by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) would be deemed to have a potential significant adverse impact.
As discussed below, the Proposed Project would not result in potential significant adverse air quality impacts from stationary sources such as the proposed HVAC systems. Similarly, Project-generated traffic would not result in an exceedance of NYSDOT’s screening criteria for mobile source air quality impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have significant adverse air quality impacts.
13.2. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Air quality is affected by air pollutants produced by both motor vehicles and stationary sources.
Emissions from motor vehicles are referred to as mobile source emissions, while emissions from fixed facilities are referred to as stationary source emissions. Emissions from Project-generated traffic are also referred to as indirect effects, while stationary sources on-Site are considered to be direct effects. Ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) are predominantly influenced by mobile source emissions. Particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxides (nitric oxide [NO] and nitrogen dioxide [NO2], collectively referred to as NOx) are
900 King Street Redevelopment
9/12/2018 13-2 DEIS
emitted from both mobile and stationary sources. Fine PM is also formed when emissions of NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx), ammonia, organic compounds, and other gases react or condense in the
atmosphere. Emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) are associated mainly with stationary sources, and some sources utilizing non-road diesel such as large international marine engines. On-road diesel vehicles currently contribute very little to SO2 emissions since the sulfur content of on-road diesel
fuel, which is federally regulated, is extremely low. Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by complex photochemical processes that include NOx and VOCs. Ambient concentrations of CO, PM, NO2, SO2, ozone, and lead are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act (CAA), and are referred to as “criteria pollutants”; emissions of VOCs, NOx, and other precursors to criteria pollutants are also regulated by EPA.
As required by the CAA, primary and secondary NAAQS have been established for six major air pollutants: CO, NO2, ozone, respirable PM (both PM2.5 and PM10), SO2, and lead. The primary standards represent levels that are requisite to protect the public health, allowing an adequate margin
of safety. The secondary standards are intended to protect the nation’s welfare, and account for air pollutant effects on soil, water, visibility, materials, vegetation, and other aspects of the environment. The primary standards are generally either the same as the secondary standards or more restrictive.
The most recent concentrations of all criteria pollutants at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) air quality monitoring stations nearest to the Project Site are presented in Table 13-1. As shown, the recently monitored levels for all pollutants other than ozone
did not exceed the NAAQS. For most pollutants, the concentrations presented in Table 13-1 are based on recent measurements obtained in 2016, the most recent year for which data are available.
Table 13-1 Representative Monitored Ambient Air Quality Data
Pollutant Location Units Averaging Period Concentration NAAQS
CO Botanical Garden (Pfizer Lab), Bronx ppm 8-hour 1.1 9
1-hour 1.9 35
SO2 Botanical Garden (Pfizer Lab), Bronx µg/m3 3-hour 23 1,300 1-hour 29(1) 196 PM10 IS 52, Bronx µg/m3 24-hour 37 150
PM2.5 White Plains, Westchester µg/m3 Annual 7.1(2) 12
24-hour 16.8(2) 35
NO2 Botanical Garden (Pfizer Lab), Bronx µg/m3 Annual 30 100
1-hour 109(3) 188
Lead IS 52, Bronx µg/m3 3-month 0.016(4) 0.15
Ozone White Plains, Westchester ppm 8-hour 0.074+(5) 0.070
Notes: + Indicated values exceeding the NAAQS. (1) The 1-hour value is based on a 3-year average (2014–2016) of the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations. EPA replaced the 24-hour and the annual standards with the 1-hour standard. (2) Annual value is based on a 3-year average (2014–2016) of annual concentrations. The 24-hour value is based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour average concentrations. (3) The 1-hour value is based on a 3-year average (2014–2016) of the 98th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations. (4) Based on the highest quarterly average concentration measured in 2016. (5) Based on the 3-year average (2014–2016) of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentrations. Source: New York State Air Quality Report Ambient Air Monitoring System, NYSDEC
Chapter 13: Air Quality
DEIS 13-3 9/12/2018
13.3. FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT
In the Future without the Proposed Project (the “No Build” condition), it is assumed that the
existing on-Site office building would be fully re-occupied. As described below, the Proposed Project would include the construction of a Site-wide total development of 445,000 gross square feet (gsf). Due to both the change in use and the increase in development size, the Proposed
Project is anticipated to result in a larger HVAC system than the existing office building. Therefore, the pollutant concentrations in the Future with the Proposed Project (the “Build” condition) would be similar or less than those predicted for the Proposed Project.
In addition, the re-occupancy of the existing office building along with several other planned or potential developments in the study area (including The Enclave, PepsiCo Project Renew Master Plan, Trinity Presbyterian Church, Sun Homes, and the Senior Learning Community at Purchase
College) were included in the No Build traffic analysis. The potential for air quality impacts with the Proposed Project were determined by comparing the traffic conditions predicted in the No Build traffic analysis with those in the predicted in the Build traffic analysis.
13.4. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
13.4.1. STATIONARY SOURCE ANALYSIS
The Proposed Project would include the construction of multiple buildings on the Site: a
single three- and four-story IL and AL building as well as 24 two-bedroom residential townhouses with a site-wide total of 445,000 gsf. The newly constructed buildings were assumed to utilize natural gas-fired HVAC systems to provide space heating, air
conditioning, and domestic hot water. The potential for adverse air quality impacts from the combustion sources of the newly constructed buildings was assessed.
There would be no nearby sensitive receptors at building heights similar to or greater
than the proposed new buildings—sensitive receptors considered are those that contain sensitive uses (i.e., residential) in buildings of similar or greater height than the proposed buildings. Based on experience with similarly sized sources in much denser urban areas (i.e., where background concentrations are higher), and using screening procedures outlined in the 2014 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual,1 sources of this size would not cause any exceedance of NO2 standards at elevated sensitive receptor locations nearest to the Site. Given the low background concentrations, the level of emissions from the Proposed Project, and the distance to
nearby sensitive receptors, no significant adverse air quality impacts would be expected from the Proposed Project on lower elevations.
However, sensitive receptors at ground levels and lower elevations are located
approximately 150 feet to the northeast of the Site (along King Street), 350 feet to the northwest of the Site (along North Ridge Street), 470 feet to the south (along Ivory Hill Lane), and 370 feet to the southeast at Blind Brook High School. In order to assess
maximum ground-level impacts, potential 1-hour and annual average NO2 as well as 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 impacts were evaluated using EPA’s AERSCREEN model (version 16216 EPA, 2016). For this analysis, it was conservatively assumed that
1 New York City Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination, CEQR Technical Manual, Chapter 17, section 322.1, March 2014.
900 King Street Redevelopment
9/12/2018 13-4 DEIS
all emissions would exhaust from a single stack from the top of the four-story IL building—conservatively combining emissions from the various proposed buildings.
While the worst-case impacts at lower elevations and ground level would occur with downwash, the analysis was performed both with and without downwash.
The AERSCREEN model predicts worst-case 1-hour average concentrations downwind
from a point, area, or volume source. AERSCREEN generates application-specific worst-case meteorology using representative minimum and maximum ambient air temperatures, and site-specific surface characteristics such as albedo, Bowen ratio, and surface roughness length. The model incorporates the Plume Rise Model Enhancements (PRIME) downwash algorithm, which is designed to predict impacts in the “cavity region” (i.e., the area around a structure which under certain conditions may affect an exhaust plume, causing a portion of the plume to become entrained in a recirculation region). Furthermore, AERSCREEN utilizes the Building Profile Input Program (BPIPPRM) model enhancement to assess downwash influences by direction.
Maximum projected concentrations that were generated from the AERSCREEN model as a result of the combined HVAC systems are presented in Table 13-2. The maximum
projected NO2 and PM2.5 concentrations with the addition of the Proposed Project at any ground-level receptor would not result in an exceedance of the NAAQS. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in potential significant adverse air quality impacts
from stationary sources, such as the proposed HVAC systems.
Table 13-2 Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations from HVAC Systems
Pollutant Averaging Period Maximum Modeled Impact Background Concentration(1) Total Concentration NAAQS
NO2 1-hour 43 109 152 188
Annual 1 30 31 100
PM2.5 24-hour 2 17 19 35
Annual 0.1 7.1 7.2 12
Note: 1 See Table 13-1
The IL and AL building may have one or more standby emergency generators. The location(s) of the generator(s) has not yet been determined; however, given the Site layout, it is not expected that a generator would be installed on the eastern side of the IL and AL building (e.g., facing the Village Hall, Rye Brook Police Department [RBPD], and Rye Brook Fire Department [RBFD] or the residences along King Street). The generators would only be used in emergencies or during testing, which would only occur during daytime hours during the week.
13.4.2. MOBILE SOURCE ANALYSIS
An assessment of the potential air quality effects of CO emissions that would result from vehicles coming to and departing from the Site was performed following the procedures
outlined in the NYSDOT TEM. As discussed in Chapter 12, “Traffic and Transportation,” the study area includes nine locations. The screening procedure described below used the traffic analysis results for the 2025 analysis year. As described
below, the results of the screening analysis show that none of the 11 study area locations
Chapter 13: Air Quality
DEIS 13-5 9/12/2018
would require a detailed microscale air quality analysis; therefore, Project-generated traffic would not result in a significant air quality impact.
13.4.2.1. CO Screening Criteria
Screening criteria described in the TEM were employed to determine whether the Proposed Project requires a detailed air quality analysis at the intersections
in the study area. Before undertaking a detailed microscale modeling analysis of CO concentrations at the study area intersections, the TEM’s screening criteria first determine whether the Proposed Project would increase traffic volumes or implement any other changes (e.g. changes in speed, roadway width, sidewalk locations, or traffic signals) to the extent whereby significant increases in air pollutant concentrations could be expected. The following multistep procedure outlined in the TEM was used to determine if there is the potential for CO impacts from the Proposed Project:
• Level of Service (LOS) Screening: If the Build condition LOS is A, B, or C, no air quality analysis is required. For intersections operating at LOS D or worse, proceed to Capture Criteria.
• Capture Criteria: If the Build condition LOS is at D, E, or F, then the following Capture Criteria should be applied at each intersection or
corridor to determine if an air quality analysis may be warranted:
o 10 percent or more reduction in the distance between source and receptor (e.g., street or highway widening); or
o 10 percent or more increase in traffic volume on affected roadways for the Build year; or o 10 percent or more increase in vehicle emissions for the Build year; or
o any increase in the number of queued lanes for the Build year (this applies to intersections); it is not expected that intersections in the Build condition controlled by stop signs would require an air quality analysis; or, o 20 percent reduction in speed when Build average speeds are below
30 miles per hour (mph).
If a project does not meet any of the above criteria, a microscale analysis is not required. If a project is located within ½-mile of any intersections
evaluated in the CO State Implementation Plan (SIP) Attainment Demonstration, (as identified in the NYSDOT TEM’s Chapter 1.1, Table 2 by county), more stringent screening criteria are applied at Project-affected
intersections. Should any one of the above criteria be met in addition to the LOS screening, then a Volume Threshold Screening analysis is performed, using traffic volume and emission factor data to compare with specific
volume thresholds established in the TEM.
Both the Capture Criteria and Volume Threshold Screening were developed by NYSDOT to be conservative air quality estimates based on worst-case assumptions. The TEM states that if the Project-related traffic volumes are below the volume threshold criteria, then a microscale air quality analysis is unnecessary even if the other Capture Criteria are met for a location with LOS D or worse, since a violation of the NAAQS would be extremely unlikely.
900 King Street Redevelopment
9/12/2018 13-6 DEIS
13.4.2.2. LOS Screening Analysis
Results of the traffic capacity analysis performed for the 2025 Build Year
condition, for the AM, midday (MD), and PM peak periods, were reviewed at each of the study area intersections to determine the potential need for a microscale air quality analysis. The LOS screening criteria were first
applied to identify those intersections with approach LOS D or worse. Based on the review of the intersections analyzed, only one intersection was projected to operate at a LOS D or worse on approaches for any of the peak
traffic periods: King Street and Anderson Hill Road.
13.4.2.3. Capture Criteria Screening Analysis
Further screening on the intersection identified in the LOS Screening Analysis was conducted using the Capture Criteria. This screening analysis indicated that none of the listed Capture Criteria would be met at the above intersection; therefore, a volume threshold screening analysis was not warranted.
13.4.2.4. Volume Threshold Screening
Since none of the Capture Criteria listed above were triggered, a Volume
Threshold Screening analysis was not warranted. Therefore, detailed mobile source analysis for the Proposed Project was not warranted and Project-generated traffic would not result in a significant air quality impact.
13.5. MITIGATION MEASURES
As demonstrated in the analyses above, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the Proposed Project would not result in potential significant adverse air quality impacts from stationary sources or mobile
sources. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have significant adverse air quality impacts.