The Facts About Asphalt Plants May 2020 Table of Contents

I. Corliss Resources Asphalt Concrete Plant Executive Summary Page 2 - 5

II. Why This Location? Page 6 GIS Info/Maps Page 7 - 8 Fact Sheet Page 9 Odor Report Option A Page 10 - 20 Odor Report Option B Page 21 - 32

III. Asphalt and Sustainability Page 33 Process Diagram Page 34 Environmental Impacts of Asphalt Concrete Plants Page 35 - 38 Sustainability Benefits Page 39 - 42 Clean Air and Cool Cities Page 43 - 44 Water Quality (porous asphalt = sustainable communities) Page 45 - 46 Recycling Page 47 - 48 Performance and Sustainability Page 49 - 50

IV. Environmental Impact Studies Page 51 Overview of the City’s studies Page 52 Health Impact Assessment Results Page 53 - 95 Transportation Study Results Page 96 - 123 Real Estate Study Results Page 124 - 140 EPA Removes Asphalt from List of Hazardous Air Pollutants Page 141 - 142 The Emissions Comparison Study – Final Report Page 143 - 167 I. Executive Summary

1 Pge 6 Corliss Resources Executive Summary

Situation Overview.

Corliss Resources has been conducting mining operations in the City of Sumner and Pierce County since 1919 where the family business has grown from a handful of employees to hundreds and produces sand and gravel, ready mix concrete, topsoil, retaining wall blocks and landscape materials, along with extensive real estate development projects and holdings in support of the growth of the City and surrounding communities. Corliss Resources, along with other related businesses such as Potelco, Gordon Trucking, Peterson Brothers, AA Asphalt, and Miles Sand and Gravel, and more all have made large investments over the years in the Sumner area. For decades these businesses, and many others have had a hand in infrastructure development in Sumner and surrounding areas and stand ready to support our much-needed local economic recovery and expansion in this COVID-19 induced downturn. Corliss Resources is seeking to build a state-of-the-art asphalt concrete plant at our mining facility, which will supply critical materials necessary to support economic growth.

History.

Mineral extraction began at the Sumner mine in the early 1900’s, long before permits were required for mining and associated uses. Decades later, Corliss Resources obtained the necessary mineral extraction permits as state and local law required. One of these permits was the Department of Natural Resources Reclamation permit which allows mineral extraction and ensures reclamation of the mine. In addition to mineral extraction, these DNR permits allow for accessory uses such as material processing, material recycling, material storage, chemical and fuel storage, ready-mix concrete and asphalt concrete plant, equipment maintenance and storage and other related activities. Under the DNR permits, Corliss Resources has mineral extraction and accessory use rights at the Sumner mine for at least another 40 years.

The Sumner mine was part of unincorporated Pierce County until 2003 when the City of Sumner asked Corliss Resources to participate in the annexation of the lower portion of the mine into the City as part of a larger City led planning effort. Corliss Resources consented to the City’s request with the understanding that the annexation would not impact Corliss Resources’ rights under its DNR mineral extraction permits and that the City would adopt similar zoning for the lower portion of the mine to align with the then Pierce County zoning regulations. Upon annexation, the City designated the property as Mineral Resource lands in its Comprehensive Plan to protect mineral resource lands from neighboring encroachment and adopted similar zoning for the site.

In 2003 a portion of the Sumner mine was rezoned as part of the first East Sumner Neighborhood Plan to residential and commercial uses with the idea that some-day when the mine is reclaimed, land uses would convert to this zoning. However in the rezone process the City inadvertently removed mining and mineral uses as allowed/conditional uses which had the effect of rendering Corliss Resources’ permitted development in the General Commercial zone legally non-conforming; thus taking away Corliss Resources’ flexibility to expand their operations or add accessory uses such as asphalt concrete production.

3 For over two years, Corliss Resources has been working with the City to restore their DNR permitted rights inadvertently removed from the City zoning code. In March 2018, at the City’s recommendation, Corliss Resources submitted a text amendment to include mineral extraction and the accessory use rights granted under the DNR permit which includes asphalt production as a conditional use in the General Commercial zone.

In August 2019 the Sumner City Council restored Corliss Resources’ other mineral resource rights but decided to study the possible impacts of on-site asphalt concrete production. The City procured independent experts to study impacts to Health, Traffic and Real Estate Property Values and provide factual and scientific information in order to make a fully informed decision. The results are available for review and much more information is contained in the asphalt section of the City’s website.

Why Here?

The Corliss mine is perhaps the best location in the whole City to locate a new, state of the art, asphalt concrete plant. And the City will benefit.

The Corliss mine is clearly a large heavy industrial operation. The mine encompasses 240 acres with another 200 acres of adjoining land and straddles the Sumner/unincorporated Pierce County line to the east of town. The site will remain heavy industrial for many decades. The addition of an asphalt concrete plant as a conditional use to the Sumner mine will not impact the character of the site; its intensity of use; or neighboring uses.

The Corliss mine creates better buffering opportunities than any other heavy industrial zoned property in the City. The size of the site, combined with new city owned wetlands to the west of the site, provide substantial buffering to neighboring uses and new potential neighboring uses under the General Commercial zoning. To the South of the mine is the 410 freeway. To the East and the North are acres of hillside owned by Corliss Resources. The expansive size of the Corliss mine ensures the odor impact area does not affect surrounding residential areas.

The Corliss mine is a superior location from a transportation perspective. Asphalt is made of 95 percent aggregate (crushed rock) and only five percent (5%) liquid asphalt. Corliss produces the necessary crushed rock in the Corliss mine. Co-location of an asphalt concrete plant within the Corliss mine will cut the amount of truck trips for asphalt concrete production in half, significantly reducing truck trips, congestion, air pollution and wear and tear on our roads. The most optimal location for an asphalt plant is within a sand and gravel mine like the Corliss mine.

The Sumner mine is located right next to freeway access. No other heavy industrial area in the City offers freeway access this close. Locating an asphalt concrete plant in the City’s heavy industrial zoned area, would generate cross-city truck trips from the mine and additional truck traffic on City arterials.

While both the City and Corliss Resources’ studies show only minimal traffic impacts, Corliss Resources will appropriately participate in rebuilding the 410/Sumner Tapps Highway Interchange. City staff says this interchange is the number-one City traffic project. Working together we will get it done.

The Corliss mine straddles Sumner and Pierce County, and there are several locations outside of the City boundary that already allow asphalt plants as a conditional use.

4 If a site is chosen within the City, permitting and oversight would be done by the City, including appropriate design and screening requirements. The City will also benefit from the additional tax revenue that will come with the plant being located within its boundaries.

Health, Sustainability, and Quality of Life.

This is not the same smelly, highly polluting smokestack industry most people think of when you say, “asphalt plant.”

Today’s asphalt concrete plants have advanced air filtration technologies, efficient stormwater systems, along with other advanced technologies ensuring minimal impacts to the environment and quality of life.

Asphalt pavements have been produced since the late 1800s – in fact naturally occurring asphalt has been used for thousands of years as a waterproofing agent. Asphalt concrete is even used to line drinking water reservoirs and fish hatchery holding ponds. Asphalt is completely inert (not chemically reactive) and has no negative impacts on surface water, groundwater or aquatic life including Salmon. Asphalt concrete is 100 percent recyclable - in fact asphalt concrete is one of the most recycled materials in the world.

The majority of emissions from asphalt concrete plants come from the combustion of fuel, such as natural gas, that are used to dry and heat the rock or aggregate and to keep the temperature of the asphalt hot. By comparison, a commercial bakery, (like the one on Puyallup Street), discharges more particulate matter and has a bigger carbon footprint from two weeks of operations than an asphalt concrete plant generates in an entire year. http://www.asphaltroads.org/assets/_control/content/files/ The%20Clayton%20Group.pdf

The emissions people may notice at times coming from an asphalt concrete batch mixing plant is mostly steam – which is water vapor created from drying the rock. The EPA removed asphalt plants from its list of high polluting industries 20 years ago.

What’s Next?/Corliss Request.

After conducting a thorough and thoughtful public outreach engagement process with neighbors for the past 24 months and receiving the results of the City’s third party experts, which prove there are virtually no impacts to health, traffic or property values, Corliss Resources is asking that the Sumner City Council approve the ordinance and restore our property rights to allow asphalt production as an accessory use to our mineral facility.

5 II. Why This Location?

6 PIERCE COUNTY CITY OF SUMNER

450' Corliss Single ~ Family General Commercial Residence Resources Operations

YMCA 1700' ~

S a lm o nC re e kW e tla n d s

Multi-Family1500'~ Single 2600'~ Family 1000'~ Housing Commericial Uses

CITY OF SUMNER PIERCE COUNTY

*An asphalt plant, if placed on Corliss property, would not be within 500' of residences. The Conditional Use Permit Process will help determine the best location 7 and appropriate mitigation. Light Industrial

Heavy Light Industrial Industrial

Puyallup St

Miles Resources Asphalt Plant

Heavy Industrial

500' ~ 500' Light Industrial Elm St

Oil Recycling Single WoodAveFamily Facility Multi Family 160' ~

Multi Family Locations Light Distances Industrial Tax Parcels Zoning Single Heavy IndustrialFamily Light Industrial R a ilro a d S t Multi Family Single8 Family Fact Sheet on Location

Location. The Corliss mine is perhaps the best location in the whole City to locate a new, state of the art, asphalt concrete plant. And the City will benefit.

Heavy Industrial Use. The Corliss mine is clearly a large heavy industrial operation. The mine encompasses 240 acres with another 200 acres of adjoining land and straddles the Sumner/unincorporated Pierce County line to the east of town. Operations include, but are not limited to, mining, washing, crushing, mixing, recycling, material storage, fuel and chemical storage, heavy equipment operation and maintenance, and truck cleaning, fueling, loading and storing. The site will remain heavy industrial for many decades. The addition of an asphalt concrete plant as a conditional use to the Sumner mine will not impact the character of the site; its intensity of use; or neighboring uses.

Buffering. The Corliss mine creates better buffering opportunities than any other heavy industrial zoned property in the City. The size of the site, combined with new city owned wetlands to the west of the site, provide substantial buffering to neighboring uses and new potential neighboring uses under the General Commercial zoning. To the South of the mine is the 410 freeway. To the East and the North are acres of hillside owned by Corliss Resources. The expansive size of the Corliss mine ensures the odor impact area does not affect surrounding residential areas.

Transportation. The Corliss mine is a superior location from a transportation perspective. Asphalt is made of 95 percent aggregate (crushed rock) and only five percent (5%) liquid asphalt. Corliss produces the necessary crushed rock in the Corliss mine. Co-location of an asphalt concrete plant within the Corliss mine will cut the amount of truck trips for asphalt concrete production in half, significantly reducing truck trips, congestion, air pollution and wear and tear on our roads. The most optimal location for an asphalt plant is within a sand and gravel mine like the Corliss mine.

City Process. The Corliss mine straddles Sumner and Pierce County, and there are several locations outside of the City boundary that already allow asphalt plants as a conditional use. If a site is chosen within the City, permitting and oversight would be done by the City, including appropriate design and screening requirements. The City will also benefit from the additional tax revenue that will come with the plant being located within its boundaries.

9 Corliss Resources New Sumner Asphalt Plant Operation

Assessment of Odor Impacts and Quantification of Anticipated Particulate Emissions Option A – West Facilities Report

May 6, 2020

Prepared by

Thomas R. Card, PE Environmental Management Consulting 41125 278th Way SE, Enumclaw, WA 98022 360-802-5540 Fax: 360-802-5541 E-Mail: [email protected]

10 Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 SUMMARY ...... 1 3.0 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ...... 1 4.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION ...... 2 5.0 COMPARABLE FACILITY SITE VISIT ...... 3 6.0 QUANTIFICATION OF REGULATED EMISSIONS ...... 6 7.0 DISCUSSION ...... 6 8.0 SPECIFIC REPORT REQUIREMENTS ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. IDENTIFICATION OF THE POTENTIAL ODOR CAUSING UNITS ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE DETECTION THRESHOLDS OF THE ODORS ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. ESTABLISHMENT OF APPROPRIATE DILUTION TO THRESHOLD (D/T) LIMITS AT THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY FOR INSTANTANEOUS ODOR OBSERVATIONS ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. A CREDIBLE ODOR MONITORING PROGRAM INCLUDING FOUR MAIN COMPONENTS; QUALIFIED ODOR OBSERVERS, OBJECTIVE OBSERVATIONAL METHODS, STANDARD MONITORING PRACTICES, AND STANDARD DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING FORMS...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. PROPOSE MITIGATION MEASURES NECESSARY TO MEET THE STATED D/T LEVELS, IF NEEDED, ...... 9 IDENTIFICATION OF A METHOD FOR RESPONDING TO COMMUNITY ODOR COMPLAINTS (E.G., INCREASED COMPLIANCE SAMPLING FREQUENCY, REPORTING OF ROUTINE SAMPLING RESULTS, SAMPLING DURING SPECIFIC METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS) ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

Tables Table 6.1 Particulate Emissions from the Proposed Facility.

Figures Figure 4.1 Proposed New Facility Layout. Figure 5.1 Observations During the May 29, 2019 Site Visit (Minimal Production). Figure 5.2 Observations During the May 30, 2019 Site Visit (Full Production). Figure 7.1 Possible Odor Impacts from the New Proposed Facilities.

11 1.0 Introduction This report is intended to provide sufficient background information to make planning decisions on the anticipated odor levels of a proposed asphalt plant to be constructed near Sumner in Pierce County, Washington. 2.0 Summary In order to assess the likely odors from a proposed asphalt facility located near Sumner, Washington, a comparable facility was visited and assessed. This facility was located in Parkland, WA and was similar in size and configuration as the proposed facility. This comparable facility was visited in late May 2019 under moderate and full production conditions. See Section 5 of this report for more details. This site did have occasional detectable odors beyond the property line, but the odors were below the quantification limit for a field olfactometer. The site additionally was assessed for hydrogen sulfide emissions, a component odor from asphalt production. The values measured (0.002 to 0.004 ppmv) were very near the odor threshold (0.001 to 0.010 ppmv) at the property line.

The low odor levels at the comparable site suggests that odor will likely not be a major issue for the planning decisions for this project. However, there were some observable offsite odors at the comparable facility, so some impacts should be anticipated. Based on past experience modeling atmospheric odor transport for similar conditions, the likely maximum extent of any odor impact will be about 500 feet. Routine odor impacts will likely occur less than 150 feet from the odor generating processes that are discussed in Section 5. 3.0 Technical Background Asphalt plant odor consists of polycyclic aromatic Photo 1. Jerome Hydrogen Sulfide hydrocarbons and hydrogen sulfide. The Analyzer. hydrogen sulfide odors can easily be measured with a Jerome gold film hydrogen sulfide analyzer, that reliably detects hydrogen sulfide down to the lower human odor threshold (0.001 parts per million by volume). The normal odor threshold for hydrogen sulfide for field conditions is 0.001 to 0.010 ppmv)

The hydrocarbons are more difficult to detect, however, total odor in the field can be quantified using a field olfactometer such as a Nasal Ranger®. Photo 2. Nasal Ranger® Photo 1 shows a Jerome analyzer and Photo 2 shows a Nasal Ranger®. This field olfactometer has six discrete measurement values, 2, 4, 7, 15, 30, and 60 dilutions to threshold.

Most odor complaint thresholds are between 7 and 30 dilutions to threshold, which is equivalent to about 10 to 100 parts per billion by volume

12 (0.010 to 0.100 parts per million) of hydrogen sulfide. The most common criteria range for an odor nuisance threshold is to be below the complaint level most of the time. This usually translates into odors below the threshold level less than between 100 and 1,000 hours per year. This is about 1% to 10% of the time.

For this project, in order to provide an accurate assessment of the likely odors of a future plant, an example comparable plant that is similar in construction, size, and operation was evaluated. 4.0 Facility Description Corliss Resources is planning to construct an asphalt batch plant near Sumner, Washington. This facility is intended to produce 400 tons per hour of asphalt products. The proposed facility layout is provided in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 Proposed New Facility Layout.

13 5.0 Comparable Facility Site Visit In order to assess any possible odor impacts from the proposed facility a comparable facility, located in Parkland, WA was visited. This facility was operated by Tucci & Sons and had a nominal production capacity of 400 tons per hour of asphalt products.

This facility was visited on May 29, 2019 in the early afternoon and on May 30, 2019 during the evening hours. During the first visit, the facility was at a minimum production level, so the second visit was intended to observe the facility during full production. This facility was operated at full capacity during the evening hours to support nighttime road construction.

During each visit the perimeter was surveyed both on foot and in a vehicle. During the foot survey, field olfactometry (Nasal Ranger®) and hydrogen sulfide measurements were taken. Figure 5.1 shows the results of these surveys for May 29 and Figure 5.2 shows the results for May 30.

The figures show the measured hydrogen sulfide in parts per million by volume (ppmv). Even though some asphalt odors were detected, they were not concentrated or sustained enough to get a valid field olfactometry reading. Therefore, all field olfactometry readings were below the detection limit of 2 dilutions to threshold.

The primary odor sources on the site were determined to be:

1. Oil storage and truck bed preparation. The truck beds are sprayed with oil to facilitate complete release of the asphalt on dumping. 2. Truck loading. 3. Truck staging after loading.

Odors could be consistently be detected within 25 feet of these activities, but could not be consistently be detected outside of this range. The farthest any asphalt odor could ever be detected from these sources was about 150 feet.

14 Figure 5.1 Observations During the May 29, 2019 Site Visit (Minimal Production).

Wind Direction 3‐5

0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.003

Loaded Truck Staging Truck Loading

0.004 Oil Storage and Truck Bed Prep 0.003

0.004

0.003

0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003

Notes: 1. All values are parts per million by volume hydrogen sulfide. 2. All field olfactometer values were below the detection limit of 2 dilutions to threshold. 3. All readings were taken between 1:00 and 2:00 PM on May 29. 2019

15 Figure 5.2 Observations During the May 30, 2019 Site Visit (Full Production).

Wind Direction <3 mph

0.004 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003

Loaded Truck Staging Truck Loading

0.002 Oil Storage and Truck Bed Prep 0.003

0.002

0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.003

16 6.0 Quantification of Regulated Emissions USEPA has official emission factors for particulate emission listed in AP‐42 11.01. Table 6.1 presents the calculated emissions from the proposed facility for the controlled and uncontrolled condition based on the AP‐42 emission factors. The proposed facility will have a baghouse for particulate emission control. Emissions are calculated for filtrable particulate matter (PM) and particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM‐10).

Table 6.1 Particulate Emissions from the Proposed Facility.

Annual Production Annual Operating Rate Production Condition Hours (tons/hr) (tons) Actual 1,750 200 350,000 Maximum 8,640 400 3,456,000

Emission Factor (lbs/Ton) Condition PM PM‐10 Uncontrolled 32 4.5 Controlled (baghouse) 0.042 0.027

Emissions (lbs/yr) Condition PM PM‐10 Actual (controlled) 14,700 9,450 Maximum (uncontrolled) 110,592,000 15,552,000

Emissions (tons/yr) Condition PM PM‐10 Actual (controlled) 7.4 4.7 Maximum (uncontrolled) 55,296 7,776

The only way to quantitatively predict the maximum impact of this source is to measure the odor emissions and use an atmospheric dispersion model to predict the offsite concentrations.

17 Figure 7.1 Possible Odor Impacts from the New Proposed Facilities.

Location of odor sources for new facility 150 ft Radius Consistent odor impact inside

300 ft Radius Possible odor impact inside

500 ft Radius Odor impacts outside of this range are unlikely

18 That is beyond the scope of this report, but based on experience with past projects, the likely normal impact limit would be about 300 feet, with 500 feet being the likely maximum extent that any odors would travel. Those distances are shown with circles on Figure 7.1.

8.0 Specific Report Requirements This section provides responses to the specific requirements of the permitting process Identification of the potential odor causing units The odor sources at the proposed facility will be: 1. Oil storage and truck bed preparation. The truck beds are sprayed with oil to facilitate complete release of the asphalt on dumping. 2. Truck loading. 3. Truck staging after loading. Analysis to determine detection thresholds of the odors The odor was detectable, but not quantifiable, at hydrogen sulfide concentrations between 0.003 and 0.004 ppmv. Establishment of appropriate dilution to threshold (D/T) limits at the property boundary for instantaneous odor observations During the visit to the example facility in Parkland, no odor levels were measurable at the property boundary with a field olfactometer. The most common property line standard for DT limits is 7 DT using a Nasal Ranger®. This value would be appropriate for this facility. A credible odor monitoring program including four main components; qualified odor observers, objective observational methods, standard monitoring practices, and standard data collection and reporting forms. Based on the evaluation of the example facility, either a Jerome hydrogen sulfide analyzer or a field olfactometer can be used for odor monitoring. Any technically trained person can use a Jerome analyzer. Field olfactometers require a high skill level and the operators must undergo training. In addition, it is skill that requires constant practice to be proficient. Therefore, it is recommended that if a field olfactometer is used, that it be done by a third party who does that kind of work routinely. Since the anticipated odor impacts are minimal, it is recommended that no routine odor monitoring be required unless a complaint is registered. However, it is recommended that the site develop operating procedures to minimize odor production. These would include minimizing the number of trucks that are parked on site with oiled dump beds and loaded with asphalt.

For this case, no special odor monitoring forms should be required. The recommended procedure would be to use an aerial photo to mark the observations. The completed marked up photo should include wind speed, wind direction, data, and time.

19 Propose mitigation measures necessary to meet the stated D/T levels, if needed, No mitigation measures should be needed, however, as stated before, it is recommended that the site be operated in a manner that minimizes the parking of loaded trucks and trucks with oiled beds on site.

20 Corliss Resources New Sumner Asphalt Plant Operation

Assessment of Odor Impacts and Quantification of Anticipated Particulate Emissions Option B – North Facilities Report

May 6, 2020

Prepared by

Thomas R. Card, PE Environmental Management Consulting 41125 278th Way SE, Enumclaw, WA 98022 360-802-5540 Fax: 360-802-5541 E-Mail: [email protected]

21 Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 SUMMARY ...... 1 3.0 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ...... 1 4.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION ...... 2 5.0 COMPARABLE FACILITY SITE VISIT ...... 3 6.0 QUANTIFICATION OF REGULATED EMISSIONS ...... 6 7.0 DISCUSSION ...... 6 8.0 SPECIFIC REPORT REQUIREMENTS ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. IDENTIFICATION OF THE POTENTIAL ODOR CAUSING UNITS ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE DETECTION THRESHOLDS OF THE ODORS ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. ESTABLISHMENT OF APPROPRIATE DILUTION TO THRESHOLD (D/T) LIMITS AT THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY FOR INSTANTANEOUS ODOR OBSERVATIONS ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. A CREDIBLE ODOR MONITORING PROGRAM INCLUDING FOUR MAIN COMPONENTS; QUALIFIED ODOR OBSERVERS, OBJECTIVE OBSERVATIONAL METHODS, STANDARD MONITORING PRACTICES, AND STANDARD DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING FORMS...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. PROPOSE MITIGATION MEASURES NECESSARY TO MEET THE STATED D/T LEVELS, IF NEEDED, ...... 10 IDENTIFICATION OF A METHOD FOR RESPONDING TO COMMUNITY ODOR COMPLAINTS (E.G., INCREASED COMPLIANCE SAMPLING FREQUENCY, REPORTING OF ROUTINE SAMPLING RESULTS, SAMPLING DURING SPECIFIC METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS) ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

Tables Table 6.1 Particulate Emissions from the Proposed Facility.

22 1.0 Introduction This report is intended to provide sufficient background information to make planning decisions on the anticipated odor levels of a proposed asphalt plant to be constructed near Sumner in Pierce County, Washington. 2.0 Summary In order to assess the likely odors from a proposed asphalt facility located near Sumner, Washington, a comparable facility was visited and assessed. This facility was located in Parkland, WA and was similar in size and configuration as the proposed facility. This comparable facility was visited in late May 2019 under moderate and full production conditions. See Section 5 of this report for more details. This site did have occasional detectable odors beyond the property line, but the odors were below the quantification limit for a field olfactometer. The site additionally was assessed for hydrogen sulfide emissions, a component odor from asphalt production. The values measured (0.002 to 0.004 ppmv) were very near the odor threshold (0.001 to 0.010 ppmv) at the property line.

Most odor complaint thresholds are between 7 and 30 dilutions to threshold, which is equivalent to about 10 to 100 parts per billion by volume

23 (0.010 to 0.100 parts per million) of hydrogen sulfide. The most common criteria range for an odor nuisance threshold is to be below the complaint level most of the time. This usually translates into odors below the threshold level less than between 100 and 1,000 hours per year. This is about 1% to 10% of the time.

Figure 4.1 Proposed New Facility Layout.

Loaded Truck Staging

Truck Traffic Route

24 5.0 Comparable Facility Site Visit In order to assess any possible odor impacts from the proposed facility a comparable facility, located in Parkland, WA was visited. This facility was operated by Tucci & Sons and had a nominal production capacity of 400 tons per hour of asphalt products.

The primary odor sources on the site were determined to be:

1. Oil storage and truck bed preparation. The truck beds are sprayed with oil to facilitate complete release of the asphalt on dumping. 2. Truck loading. 3. Truck staging after loading.

25 Figure 5.1 Observations During the May 29, 2019 Site Visit (Minimal Production).

Wind Direction 3‐5

0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.003

Loaded Truck Staging Truck Loading

0.004 Oil Storage and Truck Bed Prep 0.003

0.004

0.003

0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003

26 Figure 5.2 Observations During the May 30, 2019 Site Visit (Full Production).

Wind Direction <3 mph

0.004 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003

Loaded Truck Staging Truck Loading

0.002 Oil Storage and Truck Bed Prep 0.003

0.002

0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.003

27 6.0 Quantification of Regulated Emissions USEPA has official emission factors for particulate emission listed in AP‐42 11.01. Table 6.1 presents the calculated emissions from the proposed facility for the controlled and uncontrolled condition based on the AP‐42 emission factors. The proposed facility will have a baghouse for particulate emission control. Emissions are calculated for filtrable particulate matter (PM) and particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM‐10).

Table 6.1 Particulate Emissions from the Proposed Facility.

Annual Production Annual Operating Rate Production Condition Hours (tons/hr) (tons) Actual 1,750 200 350,000 Maximum 8,640 400 3,456,000

Emission Factor (lbs/Ton) Condition PM PM‐10 Uncontrolled 32 4.5 Controlled (baghouse) 0.042 0.027

Emissions (lbs/yr) Condition PM PM‐10 Actual (controlled) 14,700 9,450 Maximum (uncontrolled) 110,592,000 15,552,000

Emissions (tons/yr) Condition PM PM‐10 Actual (controlled) 7.4 4.7 Maximum (uncontrolled) 55,296 7,776

7.0 Discussion Based on the observations at the Tucci site, it is likely that most of the odor impacts will occur within 150 feet of the odor sources. Figure 7.1 shows and aerial photo of the proposed location of the new facility with the likely odor sources identified. The smallest circle shows the likely impact range of 150 feet. Figure 7.2 shows the anticipated impacts if a material stockpile is located immediately West of the truck loading/staging area. This stockpile would be a significant barrier to odor transport.

28 Figure 7.1 Possible Odor Impacts from the New Proposed Facilities (Without Stockpile).

Location of odor sources for new facility 150 ft Radius Consistent odor impact inside

300 ft Radius Possible odor impact inside

500 ft Radius Odor impacts outside of this range are unlikely

29 Figure 7.2 Possible Odor Impacts from the New Proposed Facilities (With Stockpile).

Location of odor sources for new facility 150 ft Radius Consistent odor impact inside

300 ft Radius Possible odor impact inside

500 ft Radius Odor impacts outside of this range are unlikely

30 The only way to quantitatively predict the maximum impact of this source is to measure the odor emissions and use an atmospheric dispersion model to predict the offsite concentrations. That is beyond the scope of this report, but based on experience with past projects, the likely normal impact limit would be about 300 feet, with 500 feet being the likely maximum extent that any odors would travel. Those distances are shown with circles on Figure 7.1 and Figure 7.2.

31 For this case, no special odor monitoring forms should be required. The recommended procedure would be to use an aerial photo to mark the observations. The completed marked up photo should include wind speed, wind direction, data, and time. Propose mitigation measures necessary to meet the stated D/T levels, if needed, No mitigation measures should be needed, however, as stated before, it is recommended that the site be operated in a manner that minimizes the parking of loaded trucks and trucks with oiled beds on site.

32 III. Asphalt and Sustainability

33P6 Asphalt is a material made from 95% dried crushed rock and 5% liquid asphalt. It’s a natural and 100-percent recyclable material that is useful in a vast range of applications, from paving roadways and basketball courts to lining reservoirs and fish hatcheries. Asphalt plants mix and heat crushed rock and liquid asphalt. The emission seen coming from the plant is actually steam released from the drying rocks. The asphalt is then loaded immediately onto trucks for delivery to construction sites or kept in storage silos.

Steam from drying Rock

34 Diagram provided by CAPA The Environmental Impact of Asphalt Plants

Hundreds of communities across the country coexist range from chemicals that improve mix performance peacefully with asphalt plants. These facilities are in to natural fibers that strength specialty mixes. The use urban, suburban, and rural areas, and most of them are and storage of these materials is carefully monitored known as good neighbors who are engaged with their and regulated. community and dedicated to sustainable operations. Asphalt pavement mixing facilities are well-regulated However, there is a lot of misleading and often by federal and state environmental agencies, and daunting information about asphalt plants and asphalt they employ multiple emission control systems. The products. Therefore, it’s important to understand small amount of emissions released from these control what’s fact, what’s fiction, and what the differences are systems are closely monitored to ensure they stay well between different types of asphalt products. below any permitted level set by the U.S. Environmen- As with any industrial facility, it’s helpful to under- tal Protection Agency (EPA) and other regulators to stand what happens behind the gates at an asphalt ensure that they pose no health or environmental risk plant. This paper provides basic information about to nearby communities. what happens at an asphalt plant including how it In fact, over a decade ago, the EPA reviewed emis- impacts your neighborhood, the community, and the sions from asphalt plants and determined that such environment. facilities are not a major source of air pollution and were subsequently delisted by the agency.1 Subse- Well Regulated by the U.S. EPA quent studies by various regulatory agencies have Asphalt plants, or more accurately asphalt pavement verified that emissions from asphalt pavement mixing mixing facilities, are industrial operations that mix facilities do not present an environmental or public liquid asphalt binder (also called asphalt cement) with health hazard. crushed rock, gravel, and sand (collectively called aggregates) to make pavement. Asphalt binder, the glue Emissions — Very Low and Getting Lower that binds the aggregates together, is one of many The majority of emissions at asphalt mixing facilities distilled products obtained from the oil refining pro- come from the combustion of fuel, such as natural gas, cess. Similar to other refined oils, such as lubricating that are used to dry and heat the rock or aggregate oils, asphalt binder is processed to meet defined stan- and to keep the temperature of the asphalt hot. Most of dards. Some mixes also require additives, which can the other potential emissions, such as the dust gener-

35 ated during the drying of aggregate, are captured by resulting in dramatic and well-documented reductions baghouse filters or similar controls and never released in the carbon footprint of asphalt pavements. to the environment. The fact is, asphalt pavements have a very small car- At times, there may be noticeable emissions coming bon footprint compared to other pavement materials.3 from an asphalt plant’s stack, but in almost all circum- In addition, the U.S. Department of Energy recognizes stances this is just steam — the loss of water vapor asphalt as a top material for sequestering carbon.4 from the drying of aggregate at high temperatures. Sometimes odors from the heated materials may Not All Asphalt Is the Same also emanate from an asphalt plant. Although they When examining regulations and health information may be noticeable, these odors pose no danger to ei- regarding asphalt, it is important to note that the ther plant personnel or to the communities in which a word asphalt (or its European name bitumen) is used plant operates. A noticeable odor does not indicate a for multiple products that are produced and used in health hazard; there are many instances of natural and different ways. Asphalt pavement material (sometimes man-made odors that are noticeable, but not harmful called asphalt concrete) is not the same thing as roof- — skunks, dairy farms, garlic, and marshlands to name ing asphalt, and it is unrelated to coal tar. but a few. Asphalt plant odors are not harmful. Each of these materials has different components, A 2001 study2 compared emissions from an asphalt properties, and is used at different temperatures, plant to emissions from other common community and which results in very different potentials for emissions. industrial sources. The study found that the low annual The asphalt pavement industry has spent decades emissions from an asphalt plant are equivalent or well advancing technology that reduces the temperature below many other common sources: needed to produce asphalt pavement, thereby mini- Similar volatile organic compound (VOC) emis- mizing and eliminating those emissions. sions from one bakery operating for about two weeks or from 13 residential fireplaces over the 100% Recyclable and Inert course of a year Asphalt pavement is the most recycled material in the Less than six months’ worth of toluene emissions U.S. Not only recyclable, it can be reused over and over from an automotive gasoline filling station again in new asphalt pavement mixes. Recycled or re- Since 1970, the asphalt pavement industry has docu- claimed asphalt pavement (RAP) contains old asphalt mented a decrease in total stack emissions of 97%, binder and aggregates that can replace virgin material while increasing pavement production by 250%. requirements. The old asphalt binder is reactivated, replacing part of the binder required in a new mix, just In an effort to further reduce an asphalt plant’s envi- as the old aggregate becomes part of the aggregate ronmental footprint, a number of technological advanc- content of the new pavement. About 80 million tons of es have been pursued and implemented by the as- asphalt pavement is reclaimed each year, and over 99% phalt pavement industry over the past 10 years. These of that total is reused or recycled. advances have helped reduce the amount of energy Asphalt is also inert. No materials are leached from needed to make asphalt pavements and have expand- the pavement itself (because it is waterproof). In fact, ed the use of recycled materials in asphalt pavements, a number of drinking water reservoirs and fish hatcher- 36 ies are lined with asphalt.5 Although vehicle emissions all mixed together in a large mill. The final finished like grease and oil may be deposited on roadways over pavement material is then stored in on-site silos for time, emissions and leachate from RAP stockpiles have short periods of time before it is loaded into trucks to been found to be practically nonexistent. The EPA be taken out to a job site. recognizes that RAP piles are unlikely to cause fugi- Truck traffic to and from a plant can be heavy, par- tive dust problems6 and can actually be used to reduce ticularly during the summer months when road repair dust from unpaved roads. Numerous studies have and construction are greatest. To ensure that the documented that leachate or runoff from RAP stor- asphalt mix reaches the paving site at the proper tem- age is not a problem,5,7 and RAP is commonly used as perature to ensure quality, plants and paving compa- clean fill material in highway construction. nies aim to manage truck traffic carefully to minimize In addition to reclaimed asphalt pavements, materi- delays at the plant or the paving site. Proximity to als from other industries are routinely recycled into roadway work sites also plays a role in deciding where asphalt pavements, including rubber from used tires, a new or temporary plant should be placed. glass, asphalt roofing shingles, and blast furnace slag. Recycling of asphalt pavement and asphalt roofing Asphalt Plants Benefit the Community shingles conserves more than 21 million barrels of liq- Asphalt plants are good neighbors, who are active in uid asphalt binder annually. their community. They offer opportunities for local employment, and often contribute to community events Busy Places and Controlled Traffic with volunteers and financial donations. Many asphalt Although asphalt plants don’t take up a large amount plants are family-owned and -operated and have been of real estate, they do contain a lot of equipment an important part of their community for decades. and are busy places to work. From the street, visible equipment may include large silos used to store the Essential to Our Nation’s Infrastructure finished pavement material, big pieces of environmen- Asphalt pavements have been produced since the late tal-control equipment to filter out stack emissions, 1800s — in fact, naturally occurring asphalt has been and many stockpiles of raw materials, including sand, used for thousands of years as a waterproofing agent. rocks, reclaimed asphalt pavement, and other recy- Asphalt plants are an important link in the nation’s cled materials. transportation infrastructure. Asphalt plants also contain tanks that store both Today, more than 94% of the nation’s 2 million miles fuel and liquid asphalt. The EPA and other environ- of paved streets and highways are surfaced with mental agencies closely regulate these tanks to ensure asphalt. That’s because state and federal highway that they don’t rupture, and there are adequate pro- departments have long known that asphalt pavements tection systems and safeguards in place to prevent are smooth, cost-effective to construct and maintain, any discharge in the unlikely event of a leak. exceptionally durable, environmentally friendly, and Other pieces of large equipment include the aggre- 100% recyclable. gate dryer drum, which is used to warm and remove In addition, asphalt pavements can provide solutions moisture from the aggregate before the materials are for multiple forms of transportation, including walking trails, cycle tracks, bus rapid transit lanes, and airport runways. And specialty pavement mixes, such as porous asphalt, are an important option for stormwater management. References 1 EPA (2002). “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Revision of Source Category List Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.” Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 29, pp. 6521–6536. http://www.gpo. gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2002-02-12/pdf/02-3348.pdf 2 Connolly, Ú. (2001). “Clearing the Air.” Hot Mix Asphalt Technology, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 21–22. http://www.flexiblepavements.org/sites/www. flexiblepavements.org/files/clean_air_2_pg_article.pdf 3 APA (2010). Carbon Footprint: How Does Asphalt Stack Up?, Asphalt Pavement Alliance, Lanham, Maryland. http://asphaltroads.org/images/documents/carbon_footprint_web.pdf 4 EIA (2009). Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2008. Report DOE/EIA-0573(2008). U.S. Energy Information Administra- tion, U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/ pdf/0573(2008).pdf 5 APA (2011). Cleaner Water With Asphalt. Asphalt Pavement Alliance, Lanham, Maryland. http://asphaltroads.org/images/documents/clean- erwater.pdf 6 Eastern Research Group (1996). Preferred and Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions From Hot-Mix Asphalt Plants, Final Report, Vol. II, Ch. 3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume02/ii03.pdf 7 Townsend, T.G., and A. Brantley (1998). Leaching Characteristics of Asphalt Road Waste. Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. http://www. hinkleycenter.com/images/stories/publications/townsend_98-2.pdf 37 The Environmental Impact of Asphalt Plants SR 206 2014-05 Asphalt Plants Know The Facts

The National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA), founded in 1955, represents more than 1,100 asphalt producers, paving contractors, and affiliated businesses that build the network of roads so critical to the American economy. The asphalt pavement industry has a long history of working with regulatory authorities and federal agencies to develop and promote innovations that enhance the sustainability of asphalt pavements, improve worker safety, protect the environment, and save taxpayers money.  There are approximately 3,500 asphalt plants in the U.S. The industry supports, directly or indirectly, 260,000 American jobs that cannot be exported overseas.  Of the 2.6 million miles of paved roads in the U.S., 94% are surfaced with asphalt.  Asphalt pavement is a precisely engineered product composed of 95 percent aggregates (stone, sand, and gravel), and 5 percent asphalt cement, a petroleum product.  Asphalt plants are well-regulated by the EPA and other state and federal regulatory agencies.  In 2002, the EPA officially delisted asphalt plants as a major source of air pollution.  Asphalt is 100% reusable, and is the most reused and recycled product in the U.S.  Asphalt plant emissions are very low and getting lower due to innovative control systems and manufacturing technology.  From time-to-time, odors may emanate from an asphalt plant — while noticeable, these odors pose no danger to plant personnel or the communities in which a plant operates.  Asphalt binder recycled from old pavements and roofing shingles replaces more than 21 million barrels of oil per year, saving American taxpayers more than $2.2 billion annually.  Not all asphalt is the same: Asphalt pavement is different from oofingr asphalt and other asphalt products. It has different components, properties, and is used at different temperatures, which results in very different potential emissions. Asphalt cement is unrelated to coal tar.  Asphalt is inert: it does not leach materials. Recycled or reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) is likewise inert.  Storage silos and fuel tanks on a plant’s property are highly regulated to ensure they are well maintained, and redundant protection systems and safeguards are in place to prevent accidental material release.  Asphalt plants are good neighbors. If there is a concern, the first teps is to contact the plant owner or operator.

ASPHALT. 5100 FORBES BLVD. Toll Free 888.468.6499 AsphaltPavement.org AMERICA RIDES ON US. LANHAM, MD 20706 Phone 301.731.4748 [email protected] Fax 301.731.4621 38 ASPHALTThe Sustainable Pavement

ENERGY & RECYCLING PERFORMANCE WATER QUALITY CLEAN AIR & COOL CITIES

Asphalt is the sustainable material for constructing pavements. From the production of the paving material, to the placement of the pavement on the road, to rehabilitation, through recycling, asphalt pavements minimize impact on the environment. Low consumption of energy for production and construction, low emission of greenhouse gases, and conservation of natural resources help to make asphalt the environmental pavement of choice. 39 SMOOTH | QUIET | DURABLE | SAFE www.asphaltalliance.com Energy and Recycling newly rehabilitated asphalt pavement can be opened to traffic as soon as it has been compacted and cooled. There is no question of waiting for days or weeks for the material to cure.

America’s leading recycler According to an EPA/FHWA study,2 the asphalt industry recycles more than 70 million tons of its own product every year, making it America’s number one recycler. Asphalt recycling saves Less energy consumed in taxpayers about $1.8 billion a year. building pavements Asphalt pavements require about 20 percent Other materials are routinely recycled into less energy to produce and construct than other asphalt pavements. Some of the most common pavements.1 are rubber from used tires, glass, asphalt roofing shingles, and blast furnace slag. Less energy consumed by the traveling public Congestion leads to unnecessary consumption of fuel and production of emissions. Reducing congestion by constructing asphalt pavements just makes sense. Asphalt pavements are faster to construct and rehabilitate. And, a new or Performance The road doesn’t wear out rubblization. The Asphalt is the Perpetual Pavement. When appro- worn-out concrete priately designed and constructed, the road is “rubblized” itself doesn’t wear out. Maintenance is simple: (fractured) and only the top layer is removed and replaced. becomes the base This can be done quickly, even overnight, and for the new it saves taxpayers money. The material that has asphalt road. This been reclaimed is then recycled. The newly saves fuel that overlaid road surface (which may also contain would have been recycled material) is a good-as-new pavement. used by trucks Total removal and reconstruction is not needed. hauling the old This is a truly sustainable construction process. material away; saves the virgin materials that would have been Rubblizing for sustainability needed to build a new road base; and can give When concrete pavements reach the end of the traveling public a new Perpetual Pavement. their useful life, they must undergo expensive In addition to the environmental and speed of rehabilitation—unless they are rehabilitated construction advantages, cost savings can be through a sustainable process called significant.

40 SMOOTH | QUIET | DURABLE | SAFE Public safety 3 dB(a) is Smooth asphalt roads give vehicle tires superior about the contact with the road, improving safety. same as doubling the distance from the road Open-graded asphalt allows rainwater to drain to the listener, or reducing through the pavement surface, reducing the traffic volume by 50 percent. amount of splash and spray kicked up by vehicles. Asphalt moves traffic along Asphalt pavements are faster to construct and Noise reduction rehabilitate. In crowded urban areas, where clos- Asphalt is the quiet pavement. Newer quiet ing a road for rehabilitation or reconstruction pavement technologies include fine-graded would dump increased traffic on neighboring dense pavements, open-graded surfaces, and routes, asphalt is the answer. Highways and two-layer open-graded pavements.3 Studies roads can be milled for recycling, then overlaid, show that the noise-reducing properties of during off-peak hours. An entire freeway can asphalt last for many years.4 Noise reduction of be resurfaced without commuters ever being 3 to 10 dB(a) are common. Reducing noise by inconvenienced. Water Quality

Stormwater Asphalt pavements do not leach management Once constructed, asphalt pavements have min- with porous imal impact on the environment. Studies show asphalt that asphalt pavements and stockpiles of Porous asphalt pave- reclaimed asphalt pavement do not leach.6, 7 ment systems can replace impermeable Environmental surfaces for parking applications lots, roads, walk- Asphalt is used to ing/biking paths, construct liners and and other applications. Porous pavements can caps for landfills. The turn runoff into infiltration; restore the hydrolo- impermeable material gy of a site, or even improve it; improve water is an effective barrier quality; and eliminate the need for detention to potential leaks.

5 basins. Drinking water reservoirs are often lined with asphalt. Asphalt cement is also used to line water pipes that supply potable water to humans.

Oregon and Washington state fish and wildlife agencies use asphalt pavement to line their fish rearing ponds.8

41 www.asphaltalliance.com Clean Air & Cool Cities Asphalt plants are Traffic relief environmentally sound When cars and trucks are mired in congestion, Emissions from asphalt plants, including green- they consume fuel and produce greenhouse house gases, are very low and well-controlled. gases. Asphalt’s speed of construction allows Since 1970, the asphalt industry has decreased planners and managers a way to fix congestion total emissions from plants by 97 percent while hot spots and bottlenecks, quickly and increasing production by 250 percent.9 cost-effectively. Emissions from asphalt plants are so low, the EPA considers them as only minor sources of industrial pollution.10

Cool Cities The urban heat island effect is not a black and white issue. 11 Porous asphalt pavements have been shown to lower nighttime surface temperatures as compared to impervious pavements. In at least one city, the hottest heat signature is at the airport, with its thick, dense, impervious runways.

REFERENCES 6. Kriech, AJ, et. al. “Determination of polycyclic aromatic compounds in asphalt and in corresponding leachate water.” Polycyclic 1. Gambatese, John A. and Sathyanarayanan Rajendran, Aromatic Compounds, Taylor & Francis Group, Philadelphia, PA. “Sustainable Roadway Construction: Energy Consumption and Volume 22, Numbers 3-4, pp. 517-535. 2002. Material Waste Generation of Roadways,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. Proceedings of 2005 Construction 7. Townsend, Timothy, and Allen Brantley. Leaching Characteristics Research Congress. of Asphalt Road Waste. University of Florida, 1998. (http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?0520020. (http://www.hinkleycenter.com/publications/townsend_98-2.pdf, Downloaded June 22, 2006.) accessed September 1, 2006) 2. A Study of the Use of Recycled Paving Material: Report to 8. Environmental Applications for Hot Mix Asphalt (PR-1). Asphalt Congress, June 1993, Federal Highway Administration and United Institute, Lexington, KY. Undated. States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. FHWA- 9. Report to Members 2001, National Asphalt Pavement RD-93-147 and EPA/600/R-93/095. Association, Lanham, MD. 2002. 3. Newcomb, Dave, and Larry Scofield, “Quiet Pavements Raise 10. Federal Register, February 12, 2002, pp. 6521 ff. the Roof in Europe,” Hot Mix Asphalt Technology, National Asphalt (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi- Pavement Association, Lanham, MD, September/October 2004. bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_register&position=all&page=6521, 4. Reyff, James, et al., I-80 Davis OGAC Pavement Noise Study: accessed September 7, 2006.) Traffic Noise Levels Associated With an Open Grade Asphalt Also, Federal Register, November 8, 2002, pp. 68124 ff. Concrete Overlay. Prepared for California Department of (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi- Transportation by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., Sacramento, CA, bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_register&position=all&page=6812 December 1, 2002. 4, accessed September 7, 2006.) 5. Jackson, Newt, Design, Construction and Maintenance Guide 11. Golden, Jay, and Kamil Kaloush, “A Hot Night in the Big City: for Porous Asphalt Pavements (IS-131), National Asphalt Pavement How to Mitigate the Urban Heat Island,” Public Works, December Association, Lanham, MD, 2003. 2005. (http://www.pwmag.com/industry- news.asp?sectionID=770&articleID=268116, accessed September 5, 2006)

Printed with environmentally-friendly ink made from linseed oil. www.asphaltalliance.com 1-877-272-007742 SMOOTH | QUIET | DURABLE | SAFE IM035 The Sustainable Pavement

ASPHALT ENERGY & RECYCLING PERFORMANCE WATER QUALITY CLEAN AIR & COOL CITIES

Clean Air & Cool Cities

Lower greenhouse gases, lower to keep traffic moving along. Asphalt’s fuel consumption speed of construction allows planners The production and placement of asphalt and managers a way to fix congestion hot pavements consumes less fuel and pro- spots and bottlenecks, quickly and cost- duces lower levels of greenhouse gases. effectively—often, all the work can be According to a recent study, asphalt pave- done at off-peak hours, so that the morn- ments require about 20 percent less ener- ing and evening commutes go smoothly. gy to produce and construct than other Because a newly rehabilitated asphalt road pavements.1 Less fuel consumption means can be opened for traffic as soon as it less production of carbon dioxide and has been compacted and cooled, keeping other greenhouse gases. lanes coned off for curing is not necessary. Since 1970, the asphalt industry has decreased total emissions from plants by Driving on smooth roads also saves fuel. 97 percent while increasing production by Studies at a Nevada test track showed 250 percent.2 Emissions from asphalt that vehicles driving on smooth roads plants are so low, the EPA considers them consumed 4.5 percent less fuel, on as only minor sources of industrial average, than on rough pavement.4 pollution.3 Asphalt can make rough roads smoother, quickly, cost-effectively, and without The asphalt industry is also working on prolonged road closures. ways to reduce the temperatures at which asphalt pavements are produced and Urban heat island reduction: how placed. Typically, asphalt paving tempera- asphalt pavements can help tures are in the range of 280 to 320°F. The urban heat island (UHI) effect—the Lowering these temperatures by 50°F or phenomenon that makes cities 2 to 10°F more would save fuel and reduce produc- warmer than nearby rural areas on a hot tion of greenhouse gases and other emis- summer day—is not a black and white sions. Working in cooperation with the issue. Many factors contribute to heat Federal Highway Administration, state retention in urban areas. And, many Departments of Transportation, and other strategies for reducing the UHI effect are Some attention has been given to the idea key stakeholders, the asphalt industry’s being explored.5 of making pavements more reflective, on research on several new warm-mix tech- Because pavements cover a large percent- the theory that a lighter-colored or more nologies holds great future promise. age of urban areas, and because improve- reflective surface may keep things cooler. Asphalt moves traffic along ments to pavements occur more frequent- But on closer look, it is seen that many When traffic backs up, cars and trucks ly than improvements to buildings, pave- factors other than color and reflectivity— consume fuel unnecessarily and produce ment-related strategies for cooling off the including pavement thickness and the excess emissions. One way to reduce city core are of interest. type of surface used—can influence the both fuel consumption and emissions is way a pavement retains, radiates, and/or

43 SMOOTH | QUIET | DURABLE | SAFE www.asphaltalliance.com Clean Air & Cool Cities releases heat. When and how heat is Interstate w/ Highway w/ released is also of importance. impervious pavement impervious pavement Porous asphalt pavements have been shown to lower nighttime surface temperatures as compared to other pavements. Below grade A thermal image taken by satellite w/ sound walls (ASTER) over Phoenix in October 2003 (Figure1) shows that an impervious freeway which has been resurfaced with 3/4 inch Above grade open graded w/ landscape open-graded asphalt is actually cooler at asphalt over night than nearby freeways without the impervious asphalt surface. Also influencing the pavement cooling of pavements is the presence of Below grade sound walls (which can trap heat), w/ sound walls vegetation cover on the adjacent landscape, whether the pavements are at Figure 1 Airport: or below grade, and the thickness of the impervious pavement pavement itself. In the same ASTER image, the hottest heat signature is at the airport, where the impervious runways are 23 inches thick.

REFERENCES

1. Gambatese, John A. and Sathyanarayanan Rajendran,“Sustainable Roadway Construction: Energy Consumption and Material Waste Generation of Roadways,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. Proceedings of 2005 Construction Research Congress. (http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?0520020. Downloaded June 22, 2006.)

2. Report to Members 2001, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD. 2002.

3. Federal Register, February 12, 2002, pp. 6521 ff. (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_register&position=all&page=6521, accessed September 7, 2006.) Also, Federal Register, November 8, 2002, pp. 68124 ff. (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_register&position=all&page=68124, accessed September 7, 2006.)

4. Sime, M., et al. WesTrack Track Roughness, Fuel Consumption, and Maintenance Costs. Tech Brief published by Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. January 2000.

5. Golden, Jay, and Kamil Kaloush, “A Hot Night in the Big city: How to Mitigate the Urban Heat Island,” Public Works, December 2005. (http://www.pwmag.com/industry-news.asp?sectionID=770&articleID=268116, accessed September 5, 2006.)

Printed with environmentally-friendly ink made from linseed oil. www.asphaltalliance.com 1-877-272-007744 SMOOTH | QUIET | DURABLE | SAFE IM035C The Sustainable Pavement

ASPHALT ENERGY & RECYCLING PERFORMANCE WATER QUALITY CLEAN AIR & COOL CITIES

Better Water Quality

Porous asphalt... they also can lead to unsound solutions Porous asphalt has been proven to last for • Conserves water such as cutting down stands of trees in decades, even in extreme climates, and • Allows for better use of land order to build detention ponds. even in areas with many freeze-thaw 3 • Reduces runoff Porous asphalt pavements allow for land cycles. • Promotes infiltration development plans that are more thought- The underlying stone bed can also pro- • Cleans stormwater ful, harmonious with natural processes, vide stormwater management for adjacent • Replenishes aquifers and sustainable. They conserve water, impervious areas such as roofs and • Protects streams reduce runoff, promote infiltration which roads. To achieve this, stormwater is con- cleanses stormwater, replenish aquifers, veyed directly into the stone bed, where and protect streams. perforated pipes distribute the water A typical porous pavement has an open- evenly. graded surface over an underlying stone Economics recharge bed.2 The water drains through Porous pavement is a sound choice on the porous asphalt and into the stone economics alone. A porous asphalt pave- bed, then, slowly, infiltrates into the soil. ment surface costs approximately the If contaminants were on the surface at the same as conventional asphalt. Because time of the storm, they are swept along porous pavement is designed to “fit into” with the rainfall through the stone bed. the topography of a site, there is general- From there they infiltrate into the subbase ly less earthwork. The underlying stone Porous asphalt offers a powerful so that they are subjected to the natural bed is usually more expensive than a tool in the toolbox for processes that cleanse water. conventional compacted sub-base, but storm-water management. this cost difference is offset by eliminat- In the natural environment, rainfall sinks Construction and performance Porous asphalt pavements are fast and ing the detention basin and other compo- into soil, filters through it, and eventually easy to construct. With the proper infor- nents of stormwater management sys- finds its way to streams, ponds, lakes, mation, most asphalt plants can easily tems. On projects where unit costs have and underground aquifers. The built prepare the mix and general paving con- been compared, the porous pavement has environment, by way of contrast, seals the tractors can install it. been the less expensive option. Porous surface. Rainwater and snowmelt become pavements are therefore attractive on runoff which may contribute to flooding. The stone bed, often eighteen to thirty- both environmental and economic six inches in depth, provides a tremen- Contaminants are washed from surfaces grounds.1 directly into waterways without undergo- dous subbase for the pavement. As a An installation at the University of North ing the filtration that nature intended.1 result, porous asphalt pavements tend not to exhibit cracking and pothole formation Carolina in Chapel Hill included parking For these reasons, managing stormwater problems. The surface wears well. Under lots where some sections were construct- is a significant issue in land use planning the stone bed is a geotextile which keeps ed from porous asphalt and others used and development. Stormwater manage- fine particles from moving into the stone porous concrete. The cost differential was ment tools can serve to mitigate the bed from below and filling in the spaces. approximately 4:1 – that is, the porous impact of the built environment on natu- concrete pavement cost four times as ral hydrology. Unfortunately, however, much as the porous asphalt pavement.1

45 SMOOTH | QUIET | DURABLE | SAFE www.asphaltalliance.com Better Water Quality walking on the pavement will not notice (or believe) that it is porous. Like all asphalt pavements, porous pavements are ADA-friendly. Environmental applications Asphalt pavements have been used for many years to enhance water quality. At landfills, asphalt liners and caps keep decreased stormwater discharge with porous pavement contaminants from leaking into groundwater. Drinking water reservoirs lined with asphalt pavement have been used in California since the 1950s. Salmon hatcheries and fish rearing ponds in the Pacific Northwest use asphalt liners.7 Figure 1: Hydrograph comparison showing how porous pavement reduces peak flow and total volume of runoff Variations on the theme Source: Cahill Associates Porous asphalt can be used successfully in parking lots, walkways, and play- Impact on groundwater Cooler cities grounds. Several current suburban proj- Asphalt pavements are compatible with Porous asphalt pavements have been ects are exploring its use in subdivision clean water. Studies show that asphalt shown to mitigate the urban heat island roads. A few porous highways and city pavements and stockpiles of reclaimed effect. Open-graded asphalt roads and streets have been constructed, both in the asphalt pavement do not leach.4,5 highways—which use the same surface U.S. and in Europe, and have performed Contaminants on the surface of pave- material as porous parking lots—have well. been shown to lower nighttime surface ments tend to become part of runoff, but The open-graded asphalt surface used for temperatures as compared to impervious with a porous pavement, they are washed porous pavements has been used exten- pavements. In at least one city, the hottest into the stone bed. From there they flow sively to surface high-volume highways heat signature is at the airport, with its down into the soil, where beneficial bac- that carry heavy trucks. Its benefits thick, dense, impervious runways.6 teria and other natural processes cleanse include noise reduction, a decrease in them. Data are limited, but indicate a Comparisons to other asphalt splash and spray kicked up by vehicles in very high removal rate for total suspend- pavements heavy downpours, and mitigation of the ed solids, metals, and oil and grease.1 The surface of a porous asphalt pavement urban heat island effect. Figure 1 shows the effect of a porous wears well. While slightly coarser than asphalt pavement on the hydrology of a some pavements, it is attractive and developed site. acceptable. Most people driving or

REFERENCES 5. Townsend, Timothy, and Allen Brantley. Leaching Characteristics of Asphalt Road Waste. University of Florida, 1998. 1. Cahill, Thomas H., et al., “Porous Asphalt: The Right Choice for Porous (http://www.hinkleycenter.com/publications/townsend_98-2.pdf, accessed September Pavements,” Hot Mix Asphalt Technology, National Asphalt Pavement Association, 1, 2006) Lanham, MD, September/October 2003. 6. Golden, Jay, and Kamil Kaloush, “A Hot Night in the Big City: How to Mitigate the 2. Jackson, Newt, Design, Construction and Maintenance Guide for Porous Asphalt Urban Heat Island,” Public Works, December 2005. (http://www.pwmag.com/indus- Pavements (IS-131), National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD, 2003. try-news.asp?sectionID=770&articleID=268116, accessed September 5, 2006) 3. MacDonald, Chuck, “Porous Pavements Working in Northern Climates,” Hot Mix 7. Environmental Applications for Hot Mix Asphalt (PR-1). Asphalt Institute, Asphalt Technology, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD, Lexington, KY. Undated. July/August 2006. 4. Kriech, AJ, et. al. “Determination of polycyclic aromatic compounds in asphalt and in corresponding leachate water.” Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds, Taylor & Francis Group, Philadelphia, PA. Volume 22, Numbers 3-4, pp. 517-535. 2002.

Printed with environmentally-friendly ink made from linseed oil. www.asphaltalliance.com 1-877-272-007746 SMOOTH | QUIET | DURABLE | SAFE IM035D The Sustainable Pavement

ASPHALT ENERGY & RECYCLING PERFORMANCE WATER QUALITY CLEAN AIR & COOL CITIES

Recycling & Energy Reduction Asphalt pavements are America’s most recycled product According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Highway Administration, about 90 million tons of asphalt pavement is reclaimed each year, and over 80 percent of that total is recycled.1 Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) can be recycled into pavement that is as high, or even higher, in quality as pavements made of all-virgin materials. And, the same material can be recycled again and again; it never loses its value. The asphalt cement—the glue that holds the pavement together—retains its ability to function as glue or cement, so that it is reused for its original purpose. The aggregates (rocks, sand and gravel) in the original pavement are also conserved. Many pavements that are more than 20 years old are actually worth more than they were when origi- nally constructed. It is estimated that recycling of asphalt pavements saves the American taxpayer Asphalt plants also recycle the fine miner- Rubblization of concrete pavement with $1.8 billion per year. It also saves al particles that are generated in the an asphalt overlay also saves energy. The hundreds of acres of landfill space process of producing asphalt pavement rubblized pavement does not need to be each year. material. This routine recycling of co-gen- hauled away; new base material does not erated material helps to conserve natural need to be trucked in; and landfill space Materials from other industries are rou- resources. is saved. In addition, the need for mining, tinely recycled into asphalt pavements crushing, and processing of virgin materi- Less energy consumed in instead of going into landfills. Some of als is reduced.3 the most common are rubber from used building pavements tires, glass, asphalt roofing shingles, and Asphalt pavements require about 20 per- blast furnace slag. cent less energy to produce and construct than other pavements.2

47 SMOOTH | QUIET | DURABLE | SAFE www.asphaltalliance.com Recycling & Energy Reduction Less energy consumed by the opened for traffic the following morning. traveling public Most motorists do not have to deal with Reducing congestion—which wastes fuel— the inconvenience of construction delay. by constructing asphalt pavements just Because a new or newly rehabilitated makes sense. Asphalt pavements are asphalt pavement can be opened to traffic faster to construct and rehabilitate. as soon as it has been compacted and Asphalt pavement rehabilitation can be cooled, there is no question of waiting for accomplished during off-peak hours. On days or weeks, with traffic being detoured highly traveled routes, much of this work or squeezed into fewer lanes, for the can be done at night. One or more lanes material to cure. can be closed after the evening rush hour, milled for recycling, resurfaced, and then

REFERENCES

1. A Study of the Use of Recycled Paving Material: Report to Congress, June 1993, Federal Highway Administration and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. FHWA-RD-93-147 and EPA/600/R-93/095.

2. Gambatese, John A. and Sathyanarayanan Rajendran, “Sustainable Roadway Construction: Energy Consumption and Material Waste Generation of Roadways,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. Proceedings of 2005 Construction Research Congress. (http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?0520020. Downloaded June 22, 2006.)

3. Decker, Dale, Rubblization: Design and Construction Guidelines on Rubblizing and Overlaying PCC Pavements with Hot-Mix Asphalt (IS-132). National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD. 2006.

Printed with environmentally-friendly ink made from linseed oil. www.asphaltalliance.com 1-877-272-007748 SMOOTH | QUIET | DURABLE | SAFE IM035B The Sustainable Pavement

ASPHALT ENERGY & RECYCLING PERFORMANCE WATER QUALITY CLEAN AIR & COOL CITIES

Performance Means Sustainability Roads that don’t wear out tured), and used as the base for a new to drain through the surface layer and off to One of the keys to sustainability is long life. Perpetual Pavement. the sides, reducing the amount of splash With Perpetual Pavements, asphalt pave- In addition to the environmental advantages, and spray kicked up by vehicles. ments have an extremely long lifespan.1 cost savings can be significant. The rub- Noise reduction A Perpetual Pavement is constructed so that blization process is much faster than the Asphalt is the quiet pavement. Quiet pave- distress occurs in the top layer only. The remove-and-replace option. It can also be ment technologies include open-graded sur- only rehabilitation required is removal of the accomplished through temporary lane clo- faces, fine-graded surfaces, and two-layer surface and resurfacing with an asphalt sures, without the necessity for traffic to be open-graded pavements.2 Studies show that overlay. Using current pavement technolo- detoured onto parallel routes. the noise-reducing properties of asphalt last gies, this can be done on an infrequent for many years.3 basis—every 15 to 20 years. The reclaimed Noise reductions of 3 to 10 dB(a) are com- material is then recycled. Perpetual Pavement mon. Reducing noise by 3 dB(a) is about the is the ultimate in sustainable design and same as doubling the distance from the road construction. to the listener, or reducing traffic volume by While the Perpetual Pavement name is rela- 50 percent. tively new, the concept is not. In fact, more For more information on quiet pavement than 35 pavements have received the technology, visit www.quietpavement.com. Perpetual Pavement Award since 2001. These award-winning roads, streets, high- Congestion reduction Asphalt pavements are faster to construct ways, and airport runways have been in and rehabilitate. In crowded urban areas, place for at least 35 years, with a minimum where closing a road for rehabilitation or of maintenance and no full-depth recon- reconstruction would dump increased traffic struction. on neighboring routes—adding to conges- Rubblization tion—asphalt is the answer. Highways and When concrete pavements reach the end of roads can be milled for recycling, then over- their useful life, they must undergo expen- laid, during off-peak hours, so that most sive, time-consuming rehabilitation. This motorists are never inconvenienced. process squanders precious natural resources, in addition to inconveniencing Smoothness and conservation Studies at a pavement test track in Nevada the traveling public. Prolonged road closures have shown that driving on smoother sur- also lead to congestion, which consumes Public safety Smooth asphalt roads give vehicle tires faces can reduce fuel consumption in the energy and produces excess emissions. superior contact with the road. neighborhood of 4.5 percent.4 Asphalt’s answer is a sustainable process called rubblization, in which the concrete One type of asphalt surface, known as When trucks are driven on rough surfaces, pavement is left in place, rubblized (frac- open-graded friction course, allows rainwater the tires bounce and deliver heavy,

49 SMOOTH | QUIET | DURABLE | SAFE www.asphaltalliance.com Performance Means Sustainability punishing impacts to the pavement. Some When vehicles reach speeds of 200 mph experts estimate that a 25 percent increase and more, and a car’s undercarriage clears in smoothness can result in a 9 to 10 per- the pavement by about one inch, the pave- cent increase in the life of pavements. ment had better be smooth. That’s why Building smooth asphalt roads is simple and nearly all racetracks—for both Formula One cost effective. Keeping them that way is fast, and NASCAR racing—use asphalt. easy and inexpensive. Taking the punishment Any doubts about whether asphalt is durable can be answered at racetracks and airports. These pavements are punished by heavy loads, but asphalt stands up to them.

REFERENCES

1. Perpetual Bituminous Pavements. Transportation Research Circular Number 503. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. December 2001.

2. Newcomb, Dave, and Larry Scofield, “Quiet Pavements Raise the Roof in Europe,” Hot Mix Asphalt Technology, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD, September/October 2004.

3. Reyff, James, et al., I-80 Davis OGAC Pavement Noise Study: Traffic Noise Levels Associated With an Open Grade Asphalt Concrete Overlay. Prepared for California Department of Transportation by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., Sacramento, CA, December 1, 2002.

4. Sime, M., et al. WesTrack Track Roughness, Fuel Consumption, and Maintenance Costs. Tech Brief published by Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. January 2000.

Printed with environmentally-friendly ink made from linseed oil. www.asphaltalliance.com 1-877-272-007750 SMOOTH | QUIET | DURABLE | SAFE IM035A IV. Environmental Impact Studies

51 Overview of the City’s Studies

Health Impact Analysis Evidence of elevated health impacts from air pollutants in communities living near asphalt plants is not well researched. Investigation of areas surrounding asphalt sites, concluded that there “do not appear to be any chemicals or compounds at levels that would pose a public health hazard” off‐site. Full Report here: https://connects.sumnerwa.gov/4110/widgets/12668/documents/7703

Transportation Analysis An asphalt batch plant has a low trip generation. Assuming operations that generate 1,250 tons of asphalt per day, trip generation is forecast to be approximately 180 weekday daily trips with 18 occurring during the weekday peak hour. A review of locating an asphalt batch plant at 16805 64th Street E (Location 1) or 2720 E Valley Highway E (Location 2) shows no new significant traffic operations impacts based on existing and future 2035/2040 traffic analysis. The planned transportation improvements will accommodate the batch plant use. Full Report here: https://connects.sumnerwa.gov/4110/widgets/12668/documents/7704

Real Estate Analysis The total effects will depend on the final design of a plant but are likely related to aesthetics and nuisances from odor given other findings. Assessments of housing prices suggest that proximity to an asphalt plant is not likely a factor in pricing. Proximity of the likely site to commercial areas means that total impacts to residential neighborhoods would be minimized. Full Report here: https://connects.sumnerwa.gov/4110/widgets/12668/documents/7705

52 Asphalt Production Policy Health Impact Assessment

Tacoma–Pierce County Health

Department &

City of Sumner

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Asphalt Production Policy Health Impact Assessment

For persons with disabilities, this document is available in other formats. Please call 800-525-0127 (TTY 711) or email [email protected].

Asphalt Production Policy - Health Impact Assessment

Publication Number 334‐456

A project of Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department and the City of Sumner in collaboration with the Washington State Department of Health. Contact: Amy Pow, Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department

Contributing Agencies/Organizations:

Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department Michelle Fredrickson, Assessment, Planning and Development Karen Meyer, Assessment, Planning and Development Amy Pow, Healthy Community Planning, Principal Planner and Lead Agency Representative

City of Sumner Eric Mendenhall, Senior Planner Ryan Windish, Community Development Director

Washington State Department of Health Marnie Boardman, Public Health Advisor Rad Cunningham, Epidemiologist Dr. Julie Fox, Epidemiologist David McBride, Toxicologist Dr. Lillian Morris Manahan, Epidemiologist Len O’Garro, Toxicologist Paula Reeves, Environmental Planner

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Asphalt Production Policy Health Impact Assessment

55 Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 6 What is a Health Impact Assessment? ...... 6 What were key findings of this Health Impact Assessment? ...... 7 I. Introduction ...... 11 What are Asphalt Plants? ...... 11 Summary of Current Regulatory Requirements ...... 11 Project Background ...... 12 II. Health Evaluation ...... 14 Air Quality ...... 14 What air pollutants are typically emitted from asphalt plants? ...... 14 What health effects are associated with exposure to asphalt fumes? ...... 16 What health effects are related to the individual pollutants in asphalt fume? ...... 17 How are air quality impacts from asphalt plants regulated?...... 18 Noise ...... 20 Traffic and Mobility ...... 21 Water and Fisheries ...... 22 How are water quality impacts from asphalt plants regulated? ...... 23 Taxes and Municipal Budgets ...... 25 Tax Base and the Social Determinants of Health ...... 25 Does tax generation from new development improve public health? ...... 26 Economic Impacts ...... 27 Do Asphalt Plants Create Jobs? ...... 27 Do these jobs in asphalt manufacturing improve public health? ...... 28 III. Population Health ...... 29 Health Determinants ...... 29 Baseline Health ...... 31 IV. Regulating Asphalt Plants ...... 35 Ongoing Monitoring ...... 35 Sumner’s Development Regulations ...... 35 V. Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 37 References ...... 38

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Asphalt Production Policy Health Impact Assessment

Tables

Table 1. Washington State Board of Health, Sample Health Impact Review Strength of Research Evidence Criteria ...... 12 Table 2. Recent limits set by PSCAA for new asphalt plants. [28] ...... 19

Figures

Figure 1. Health Impact Assessment Types [2] ...... 6 Figure 2. Strength of Evidence Logic Model ...... 13 Figure 3. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas as Defined by Pierce County (buffer distance 100 feet) ...... 25 Figure 4. Map of Sumner city limits and census tracts labeled with census tract numbers that define the Sumner / Bonney Lake region for the social determinants of health assessment ...... 30 Figure 5. Summary of social determinants of health in Sumner / Bonney Lake region, Pierce county, and Washington State with 90% confidence intervals. [113‐119] ...... 31 Figure 6. Map of Sumner city limits and zip codes used in the baseline health assessment ...... 33 Figure 7. Hospitalization rates for health conditions related in noise and air pollution exposure in Sumner, Bonney Lake, Pierce County and Washington State with 95% confidence intervals [120] ...... 34

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Asphalt Production Policy Health Impact Assessment

57 Executive Summary

What is a Health Impact Assessment?

A Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a process that helps support the required review and analysis of potential health effects of a plan, project, or policy before it is built or implemented. An HIA can provide recommendations for increasing positive health outcomes and minimizing adverse health outcomes. [1]

Both the State and National Environmental Policy Acts (40 C.F.R. 1508) call for the review and analysis of the direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts of a proposed action on public health and safety as well as other factors. A primary stated purpose of the State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21C.010) is to stimulate the health and welfare of human beings. Additionally, Local Health Jurisdictions in Washington have the ability to call for special studies or other actions necessary to maintain public health and safety under state law (RCW 70.05).

The HIA prepared for Tacoma‐Pierce County Health Department and City of Sumner focused on a proposed policy change to revise zoning in certain areas allowing for asphalt production.

A Local Government, Tribal Nation, Washington State Department of Ecology, or other local or regional municipality may request assistance from Washington State Department of Health’s Environmental Public Health Division. Types of HIA are listed in Figure 1. HIA’s can be standalone documents or integrated into environmental impact statements. Each of these types of Health Impact Assessments follow established processes. This Asphalt Production Policy HIA is considered a Rapid Health Impact Review.

Figure 1. Health Impact Assessment Types [2]

What type of Health Impact Assessment is right for your community?

 Comprehensive HIA – A comprehensive HIA examines as much evidence as possible, using: . An extensive search of the literature and other existing information . In‐depth interviews . Community surveys . Some original research if appropriate . Input from experts and agencies This type of HIA can take six months or more, and can require a team to conduct it.

 Intermediate HIA – An intermediate HIA may combine a workshop with key stakeholders followed by desk‐based work to build up a more detailed picture of the potential health impacts than would typically be identified during a rapid or "mini" HIA. It may involve a limited literature search, usually non‐systematic, and relies mainly on surveillance or routine, readily available data.

 Rapid HIA – A rapid HIA uses both existing research and rapid assessment techniques. Although it could be carried out by one or two researchers, it may also involve more and can take up to three months.

 Desktop HIA ‐ As the name implies, this HIA focuses mainly on existing research and remote contact with a few stakeholders. It would probably be carried out by one or two people, and may take between two to six weeks.

I. Executive Summary 6

58 What were key findings of this Health Impact Assessment?

A panel of health experts from State Department of Health considered the health and safety implications related to the potential expansion of asphalt production plants in specific locations identified by the City of Sumner. The general conclusions of this HIA (See Section V. Conclusions and Recommendations, Page 36) are designed to be transferable to other parts of Pierce County. This project proposes changes to policy and regulations pertaining to asphalt plants within the areas designated Mineral Resource Lands in Low Density Residential and General Commercial zones, and Heavy Manufacturing (M‐2) zones within the City of Sumner.

The health panel conducted original analysis, and identified and considered scientific articles, professional reports, and government data. It should be noted that research evidence in some areas is very limited, therefore making meaningful conclusions difficult. Based on its review, the panel offers the following summary of findings:

1. What are the potential health impacts of chemical agents on workers at the asphalt facilities or residents? Minor symptoms of irritation and lower respiratory symptoms have been reported in workers in the asphalt industry. Evidence of cancer and non‐cancer health impacts among asphalt workers is mixed and inconclusive. Residential risk is addressed as nearby populations below. See Section II. Air Quality, Page 16. 2. Are there any populations at risk of exposure to air pollution due to proximity, prevailing winds, or other environmental factors? Off‐site air pollution exposure levels are expected to be highest in areas closest to an asphalt plant. In modeling performed by the Department of Ecology based on several assumptions, the highest levels were found to be 37 meters (122 feet) from the source. Sources of emission on hot mix asphalt plants are typically at least 150 feet from the property boundary, so while workers at the plant would be within this area, it is not expected that residents would be within this area. See Section II. Air Quality, Page 14. Depending on the time of year, prevailing winds in the area of the proposed asphalt plants are from the west, southwest and south pushing more of the air emissions to the east, northeast, and north. However, prevailing winds, in this case, are not the only indicator of exposure because the wind direction is variable and there are frequent calm, low‐wind periods indicating that the emissions could be present in other directions as well. See Section II. Air Quality, Page 15. 3. How will asphalt plants potentially affect the health of nearby populations and are there any vulnerable populations more likely to be impacted? Are health impacts distributed evenly across different population groups? Health impacts are generally more likely where there are higher exposures affecting vulnerable populations. Populations that are more vulnerable to air pollution in general include people with lung diseases or respiratory infections, people with heart or blood vessel problems, people who have had a heart attack or stroke, older adults, infants, children, pregnant women and people who smoke, as well as people who are socially vulnerable due to social, economic, and environmental

I. Executive Summary 7

59 conditions, For more detail on sensitive populations in the Sumner area, see Section III. Population Health, Page 28. Increased incidence of health impacts in residents living near asphalt plants have not been identified. Emissions indicate that there is potential concern. Nuisance odors have been noted by residents living near asphalt plants. People with pre‐existing conditions such as heart and lung disease, respiratory infections, diabetes as well as infants, children and pregnant women are more likely to experience negative health effects from changes in air quality. See Section II. Air Quality, Page 16. 4. Are there any additional impacts to populations within the affected areas that have existing health disparities? We do not know if there would be additional impacts in the areas proposed to have asphalt plants. Some health disparities do exist in the surrounding areas, where some populations experience higher than average rates of some poor health outcomes. In general, the Sumner / Bonney Lake region has fewer residents experiencing social vulnerabilities than Pierce County and Washington State. It is important to note that there are still families living below the poverty line, individuals with disabilities, adults without health insurance, and individuals facing unemployment in the Sumner region. These populations are at an increased risk for poor health outcomes. Health disparities are discussed in detail in the 2019 Pierce County Community Health Assessment. Pierce County, Sumner, and Bonney Lake had higher hospitalization rates for health outcomes related to noise exposure and air pollution than Washington State. See Section III. Population Health, Page 28. 5. Are there any potential health effects related to lighting, noise or vibration? Noise, light pollution and vibration originating from asphalt plants are not well researched. In general, elevated noise exposure can trigger the body’s stress response, cause sleep disturbance, and increase blood pressure. There is some evidence that it can lead to adverse cardiovascular heart problems. Light pollution is not as well researched, but there is indication that light exposure in the evening can have short‐term impacts on circadian rhythm. Occupational exposures to vibration have demonstrated impacts including hearing loss and musculoskeletal pain, but impacts in the general public with more typical exposures are not well‐researched. See Section II. Noise, Light and Vibration, Pages 20. 6. Are there any potential traffic related health impacts caused by expanding operations? Traffic impacts would result from the hauling of materials both to and from the asphalt plant facility. This traffic would primarily consist of heavy trucks, which could impact the condition of local streets as well as result in air and noise impacts as described in this document. The traffic study conducted by the City of Sumner may assess the magnitude of these impacts from increased traffic. See Section II. Traffic, Page 21. 7. Are there any potential impacts to water quality? While not well researched, a limited number of studies and investigations indicate that asphalt production facilities may increase some pollutants, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), in soils at and near the production site, although there was little association between

I. Executive Summary 8

60 asphalt production and contamination of groundwater. Of the few studies identified (<5), none linked PAHs contamination of soil or water to community health effects. More significant contamination of local soil and water environments has occurred at sites where accidents, poor management practices, weak regulatory enforcement, or neglect have led to leaks and spills of fuels, solvents or contaminated waste. Critical aquifer recharge areas as defined by Pierce County (shown in Figure 3), wells and creeks are located within the vicinity of properties being considered for re‐zone. Water quality has the potential to be impacted by contaminants from various sources at industrial sites if they are not appropriately managed. See Section II. Water and Fisheries, Page 21. 8. Are there any potential impacts to agriculture, residential gardens or food forage including fish, shellfish, or other wildlife? While PAHs have been monitored in fish tissue samples across the state, measured concentrations have been low. Currently no fish advisories have been issued. See Section II. Water and Fisheries, Page 23. 9. Are the current state and federal standards related to the infrastructure and operation of asphalt batch plants sufficient to address any potential health concerns? If not, what additional measures are needed? Most state and federal standards, especially those related to air quality emissions, are designed to protect public health. While the regulations are established through an extensive administrative and legal process, there is sometimes a lag in incorporating current health evidence that is continually evolving. See Section II. Air Quality, Page 18. Regulations with emissions standards are only one way to control emissions, and are perhaps the least responsive. In Washington State the Notice of Construction (NOC) permit application process, also referred to as Minor New Source Review, relies on a determination of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) that considers technology advances. The NOC review considers BACT and impact analysis for toxic air pollutants. The NOC process can lead to conditional permitting approvals that reflect the review standards provided by regulation. In general, ensuring that exposures to pollutants are kept low is good public health practice. Among several options, placing requirements on zoning, plant design, operating practices, and monitoring with enforcement of compliance can help achieve this. See Section IV. Regulating Asphalt Plants, Page 34. 10. Are there any foreseeable community health benefits? Manufacturers, including asphalt production operations, pay Business and Occupation (B&O) taxes in Washington that generate revenues for the state general fund. A portion of these taxes goes to municipalities. Currently, Sumner does not collect a local B&O tax. Development and operation of additional asphalt plants in Sumner or other locations in Pierce County would generate additional B&O tax revenue for the state general fund. Social determinants of health, such as jobs, education, income, and housing, could benefit from by tax revenue. See Section II. Taxes and Municipal Budgets, Page 25.

I. Executive Summary 9

61 Asphalt plants on average generate between 20‐25 permanent jobs, if production is consistent with averages. The Asphalt Manufacturing industry's national as well as state level performance closely follows developments in construction and road infrastructure building and has fluctuated over the past decade. However, the market is expected to support industry growth through 2024. See Section II. Economic Impacts, Page 26. 11. What are the potential health impacts associated with locating an asphalt plant on Sumner’s Mineral Resource designated lands and Heavy Manufacturing (M‐2) zone? This Health Impact Assessment is somewhat limited in its ability to determine specific impacts to the proposed area for asphalt plants, mainly because there is no specific proposal on the scale and operations of a new facility. We expect that review of such a proposal under SEPA and as part of air permitting would provide more details on the environmental and public health impacts. Consider the use of TPCHD’s Guide to Integrating Health into SEPA Reviews which can be found at: https://www.tpchd.org/home/showdocument?id=586. Though air modelling results typically provided as part of a notice of construction (NOC) application were not available, Washington State Department of Ecology’s Technical Support Document for the Asphalt Plan (Portable and Stationary) General Order provides limited relevant data for this purpose. This resource modeled emissions estimates based on several assumptions of production (less than 300,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year) and specific options for Best Available Control Technology. The reported data relies on a generalized scenario and it uses a screening model to estimate ambient impacts at given distances from the facility. While emissions from a given asphalt plant are highly dependent on the assumptions, the report provides some indication of the toxic air pollutants that are likely to be present in the levels of highest concern for health. It should be noted that the results in Department of Ecology’s report do not reflect recently approved standards set as threshold levels or current modeling approaches. In addition, modelling in Ecology’s report does not take into account significant evaluation of several contributing environmental factors, such as meteorology, which is often included in ambient analyses conducted as part of an NOC application and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). See Section I. Introduction, Page 11 and Section II. Air Quality, Pages 14‐20.

I. Executive Summary 10

62 I. Introduction

What are Asphalt Plants?

Asphalt plants or hot‐mix asphalt plants are facilities where asphalt concrete is manufactured. Hot mix asphalt paving materials are a mixture of well‐graded, high‐quality aggregate and liquid asphalt cement, heated and mixed in measured quantities. Recycled Asphalt Product (RAP) may also be accepted by an asphalt plant, where it is mixed with other materials and reprocessed into usable asphalt. [3]

There are three main classes of asphalt plants: batch heater, semi‐continuous, and continuous (or drum mix). Continuous plants have the highest throughput capacity (usually around 500 tons per hour) while batch heater plants have the lowest capacity and are used where short production runs are common. [3]

Summary of Current Regulatory Requirements The regulating and permitting of asphalt plants is a shared responsibility between local, regional and state agencies. Local governments, under the state’s Growth Management Act, have the authority to regulate siting of asphalt plants through zoning codes, as well as site design and operation through development regulations which control hours of operation, lighting, traffic movement, and building orientation.

EPA and state air quality standards (incorporated in WAC 173‐400) set limits on allowable emissions and requirements for control technology to maintain those levels. For Pierce County and the Puget Sound Region, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) regulates air emissions and issues permits including an Order of Approval or Notice of Construction for portable asphalt production. PSCAA requires a new asphalt plant operator to comply with emissions standards, incorporate best available control technology to mitigate air emissions and demonstrate that their ambient impacts do not violate ambient air quality standards or exceed Acceptable Source Impact Levels. Facilities must also report methods they will employ for dust control. State law and regulation require compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) through a final SEPA determination from the lead SEPA agency prior to the Notice of Construction or Order of Approval. [4]

The Washington State Department of Ecology serves as the lead agency for a number of counties in the state regulating air quality, water quality and water resources by requiring a Sand and Gravel General Permit of asphalt plant owners/operators. This limits the discharge of pollutants to surface waters under the authority of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. [5]

State rule (WAC 173.60.040) establishes maximum permissible environmental noise levels between noise sources and receiving sites, and asphalt plants are required to meet these requirements. Noise impacts are directly related to the amount of activity, as well as the time of day when this activity takes place. Accordingly, additional noise level limits are applied between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

See also Section II. Health Evaluation for additional information on regulatory requirements related to air and water quality.

II. Introduction 11

63 Project Background

The Tacoma‐Pierce County Health Department (TPCHD) and the City of Sumner are partnering with the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) to conduct a Health Impact Assessment (HIA), consistent with Society for Practitioners of HIA (SOPHIA) guidelines, that addresses policy and regulations pertaining to asphalt plants within the areas designated Mineral Resource Lands in Low Density Residential, General Commercial, and Heavy Manufacturing (M‐2) zones within the City of Sumner. This HIA addresses a series of questions related to: toxicology, air quality, health disparities, drinking water, agriculture and aquaculture, noise, traffic related health impacts.

The Department of Health (DOH) has conducted a Rapid Health Impact Assessment (HIA) to provide a prompt yet thorough assessment of potential health impacts related to asphalt plants. A Rapid HIA is an analysis of how a proposed policy or budgetary change will likely impact health and health disparities. For the purpose of this review ‘health disparities’ have been defined consistent with state law as the differences in disease, death, and other adverse health conditions that exist between populations.

In this Rapid HIA, DOH provides summaries of the evidence analyzed in a logic model depicting possible pathways leading from policy change, zoning code changes, to health outcomes shown in Figure 2. The research evidence discussed in this HIA is categorized using the Washington State Board of Health, Health Impact Review criteria shown in Table 1. This process is designed to rely on the best available science, limit researcher bias, reduce literature review time, and communicate the results in an accessible way. For example, when eleven or more studies are available, the criteria shown in Table 1 is applied. However, if there are fewer studies, a stricter set of evaluation criteria is applied. Further, this method ensures that the science is generalizable to Washington State and the study design is most appropriate for this HIA.

Table 1. Washington State Board of Health, Sample Health Impact Review Strength of Research Evidence Criteria

90‐100% of the studies support the association Strength‐of‐evidence: Very strong (Note: “Very strong” implies that the premise is well accepted by the scientific community—if inaccurate, consider downgrading to “strong.” Also consider downgrading if you find strong studies that do not support this). 70‐89% of the studies support the association Strength‐of‐evidence: Strong 60‐69% of the studies support the association Strength‐of‐evidence: A fair amount <60% of the studies support the association Not well researched

II. Introduction 12

64 Figure 2. Strength of Evidence Logic Model

Research Question Key

Informed Assumption Zoning Text Amendment

Very Strong Evidence Allowing Asphalt Strong Evidence Plan Development Fair Amount of Evidence Not Well Researched

Asphalt Plant Built

Noise Tax Revenue Water Pollution Job Creation Air Pollution Pollution Generation

*Note: Impacts of each relationship depicted in Figure 2 on public health are discussed in detail in Section II. Health Evaluation.

II. Introduction 13

65 II. Health Evaluation

Air Quality

What air pollutants are typically emitted from asphalt plants?

Asphalt fume is an airborne mixture of several different compounds. Emissions tests by the EPA have found that asphalt plants emit a wide range of pollutants including particulate matter, sulfur

dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and some metals. [3]

Several factors impact the amount emissions from a plant. Typical drum mixers in hot mix asphalt (HMA) plants are estimated to emit more particulate matter, VOCs, PAHs and metals than typical

batch mixers, though batch mix HMA’s emit more CO and SO2.However, typical batch mix plants also have a lower production rate. [3] The fuel used in the production process contributes to the type of emissions. For example, in typical drum mix dryers that use natural gas generally have lower estimated annual emissions for various pollutants than those that use oil. [3] The primary emission sources of particulates and gases are the dryers, hot bins and mixers. [3] Fugitive emissions also typically occur from storage silos, truck load‐out operations, liquid asphalt storage tanks, hot oil heaters, yard emissions, and vehicular traffic on‐site.

Almost all of the air pollutants would be released through the stack, with a much smaller quantity being emitted from other sources associated with plant operations such as truck loading or conveyor belts [6]. For example, a typical asphalt processing plant that makes 500 tons of hot mix asphalt per day would emit approximately 20 pounds per day of particulate matter through the stack and 0.05 pounds per day from other plant operations. Likewise, for a plant of this capacity, approximately 10 pounds per day of VOCs would be emitted through the stack with 0.5 pounds per day being released as the result of other plant operations. [6] Levels of air pollutants would be expected to be higher at the asphalt plant, lower in the immediate vicinity of the plant, and to return to background levels farther out.

The Washington Department of Ecology modelled off‐site emissions as the basis of a determination that asphalt plants are candidates for General Orders of Approval in 2011 (“Ecology’s Asphalt Plant Report”). [7] In Ecology’s Asphalt Plant Report, emissions were determined based on assumed production rates (annual hot mix asphalt production limited to 300,000 tons, as well as hourly and daily limits) and emissions factors from the EPA’s AP‐42 for asphalt plants with applied Best Available Control Technology were applied to a screening dispersion model. With these inputs and assumptions, among others, the maximum impact of emissions was found to occur at 37 meters (122 feet) from the source. The Report further indicates that there are typically 150 feet from the property boundary and any emitting unit including the drum mix dryer, storage silo, baghouse exhaust, storage tanks and load‐out operations. [7]

According to the assumptions applied in Ecology’s Asphalt Plant Report, the modeled results of selected criteria air pollutants at 121 feet from the point of emission are all found to be below the

II. Health Evaluation 14

66 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Selected criteria air pollutants included nitrogen

dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter smaller than 10 µm

(PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). [7]

Evaluation of toxic air pollutants in Ecology’s Asphalt Plant Report is more complicated because Acceptable Source Impact Levels (ASILs) and Small Quantity Emission Rates (SQERs) that are used to screen for ASILs have been updated since the publication of the report, and the new levels went into effect on December 23, 2019. [7, 8] Based on the screening applied using the previous SQERs as shown in the report, 10 toxic air pollutants were found to exceed the SQERs, which triggered further modeling. These 10 toxic air pollutants that exceeded the previous SQERs are: volatile organic compounds (acetaldehyde, benzene, and formaldehyde), a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (naphthalene), a gas (sulfur dioxide), and metals (arsenic, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, manganese and mercury). [7] For evaluated toxic air pollutants in the report, ethylbenzene would also now exceed its updated SQER, and it is also possible that other pollutants would be added for initial modelling that would be further evaluated. The emissions from each asphalt plant are dependent on a number of variables, so levels of emissions identified in Ecology’s Asphalt Plant Report would not necessarily apply to a specific proposed asphalt plant, but it is likely that the pollutants indicated as the top pollutants of concern would be similar.

The ASILs are designed to be conservative by offering a margin of safety in protecting public health. Of the 11 pollutants identified with emissions greater than the SQERs in Ecology’s Asphalt Plant Report, 8 of them have ASILs based on cancer risk while the ASIL’s for the other 3 (sulfur dioxide, manganese and mercury) are for non‐cancer impacts. ASIL thresholds for carcinogens in Washington are based on annual average concentrations and are set at the level of risk estimated to cause one case of cancer per one million people over a lifetime of exposure. For the non‐cancer ASILs, a hazard quotient is applied with a ratio of one or less than one at a level where it is expected there would be no adverse health effect below a specific exposure threshold for that pollutant.

In alignment with the results from Ecology’s Asphalt Plant Report, the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) conducted an exposure investigation of communities near 7 asphalt 1 plants throughout the United States. [9‐11] Measured levels of PM2.5, PM10 and hydrogen sulfide were found to be “slightly elevated” compared to background levels near several of the asphalt sites, and while some VOCs and PAH concentrations were above background concentrations they were found to be “very low”. [9]

The area with air pollution levels above background levels around the plant would vary. The distance and direction that air pollution travels from the source depends on the location, the time of day or year, prevailing weather, topography, nearby land use, traffic patterns and the specific

pollutant. [12] As an example from a different type of pollution, pollution levels of NOx have been found to return to background levels within about 2000 feet from a traffic source compared to

1 Some of the ATSDR Health Consultations are no longer available on‐line, but a summary of results from the studies is available in the appendix of the Health Consultation for APAC Carolina.

II. Health Evaluation 15

67 PM10, which returned to background at about 600 feet. [13] Based on data from a weather station in Puyallup over the last 12 years, the prevailing winds in the Sumner and Bonney Lake area are primarily from the south/southwest October through April, and primarily from the southwest/west May through September. [14] While the wind direction and speed change, this suggests that air emissions would more often be blown to the north, northeast, and east of the plant. Of note, production is often highest in Washington in summer months when conditions are dryer and more conducive to applying asphalt outdoors, as the Washington State Department of Transportation requires that hot mix asphalt not be placed for wearing course on a traveled way on wet surfaces, on cold temperatures or between October 1 and March 31st without written approval. [15] While the prevailing winds indicate dominant trends, there are a large percentage of “calm” wind periods at this location when air pollutants would not disperse as readily and may lead to higher impacts near the facility. Newer dispersion models applied as part of a Notice of Construction application would account for these calm periods. What health effects are associated with exposure to asphalt fumes? Fumes created from heating asphalt can be inhaled into the lungs or can condense onto exposed areas of the skin. [6] Little is known about exposure on skin, and most available information is related to inhalation of asphalt fumes. The risk of health effects that can be caused by exposure to asphalt fumes depend on the content of the fumes, the duration of exposure, the amount or concentration of exposure, and individual sensitivity to exposure.

Individuals with the highest exposures to asphalt emissions tend to be workers in the asphalt industry. The National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) identifies five segments of the asphalt industry: hot mix plants, terminals, roofing, paving and roofing manufacturing. There are different ways to measure exposure to asphalt fume and PAHs. Workers in hot mix plants have lower exposures than the other asphalt industry jobs when measured in terms of exposure to benzene‐soluble particulates. [16‐18]

NIOSH reports that workers in the asphalt industry have experienced mild temporary symptoms of nasal and throat irritation, headache, and coughing. [16] Asphalt workers have also experienced other symptoms such as skin irritation, nausea, headaches and fatigue, but NIOSH reports that it is unclear if these are related to asphalt fume exposure. [16]

Severe health impacts specific to hot mix asphalt workers are not well researched. Studies of lung cancer and non‐cancer impacts in the more general group of asphalt workers have conflicting findings. [18‐25] Some research has indicated evidence of lung cancer related to occupational asphalt fume exposures [19, 20, 24], while other research has found no association with lung cancer. [23, 25] A recent investigation, that pooled together results from eight occupational studies of asphalt workers that addressed the influence of other exposures like smoking and alcohol consumption, did not identify increased risk of lung cancer, but results of other cancers were less clear. [26] There is some evidence of lower respiratory tract symptoms and bronchitis among asphalt paving workers. [16]

Evidence of elevated health impacts from air pollutants in communities living near asphalt plants is not well researched. In ATSDR’s investigation of areas surrounding asphalt sites, they concluded

II. Health Evaluation 16

68 that there “do not appear to be any chemicals or compounds at levels that would pose a public health hazard” off‐site. [9] ATSDR also reviewed the estimated asphalt emissions from the EPA and applied toxicities for 159 chemicals that were not directly sampled and determined that “the

compounds most capable of posing a health hazard in communities” were SO2, NOx, and that CO, aldehydes, particulates and some metals “might also pose some concern”. [9] Updated results from Ecology’s technical report using modeled emissions indicate that the metal hexavalent chromium is likely the only air pollutant that would exceed threshold values. [7, 8]

Concerns about odors in the areas surrounding the asphalt sites were part of what initiated the ATSDR investigations. [27] Hydrogen sulfide was the toxic compound emitted in the largest amount from a hot mix asphalt plant in the ATSDR study. High levels of hydrogen sulfide can be immediately lethal, while lower levels can cause minor symptoms. Levels measured in the study were lower than the acutely lethal amount, but above the odor threshold. [9] Accordingly, residents living near an asphalt plant may detect odors from the plant. Odor detection depends on the emissions from the facility and the prevailing wind directions. PSCAA’s complaint database has received more than 25,000 complaints about odor since January 1, 2010, of which less than two percent mentioned asphalt odor. [28] Health impacts from odors beyond direct effects related to air pollutants are not well researched though there is some evidence that unpleasant odors can induce stress [29, 30]. What health effects are related to the individual pollutants in asphalt fume?

Beyond considering the impacts of asphalt fume, we further consider the individual pollutants emitted from asphalt plants and evidence of health impacts for those individual pollutants. There is strong evidence that some of the air pollutants comprising asphalt fume, especially PM2.5, benzene and PAHs, are associated health impacts [31‐41], though it is not clear that they are present at levels that would pose a health concern to the general public or to asphalt plant workers. Common minor symptoms of exposure for both particle and gas air pollution include eye, nose and throat irritation and headaches. Severe impacts vary more by pollutant, summarized briefly here.

Pooled results of a large body of published epidemiologic literature identify that exposure to

elevated levels of particulate matter, both as PM2.5 and PM10, is associated with increased mortality and hospitalizations, especially for impacts related to cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease (specifically, asthma in children and COPD in people over 65). [42, 43] A study

of 60 million Medicare beneficiaries found that risk of death from PM2.5 exposures remains even at annual levels below the National Ambient Air Quality Standard level (12 µg/m3). [32] Other

health impacts are also being explored, with growing evidence indicating that PM2.5 and PM10 exposures can lead to stroke [44], type 2 diabetes [45], neurological and cognitive impairment [46, 47], and pre‐term and low‐birth weight babies. [48, 49]

Risk of exposure to individual PAHs are often grouped together by estimating health risk relative to a single PAH, with benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) serving as an index to allow for comparison. [50] Pooled results of several studies of elevated occupational exposures to BaP that are not from asphalt fume have found an increased risk of lung cancer from long term exposures. [50]

II. Health Evaluation 17

69 Similar to PAHs, individual VOCs have a range of toxicities and severe impacts from exposure include damage to liver, kidney and central nervous system. (See ATSDR toxicological profiles for health effects of individual VOCs.) [51] Some VOCs are also classified as carcinogens, such as benzene that has been associated with certain types of leukemia and is classified as a known carcinogen by the Department of Health and Human Services, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the EPA. [52]

Health impacts from exposure to metals vary. Ecology’s Asphalt Plant Report indicates that among the metals emitted from asphalt plants, arsenic cadmium, hexavalent chromium, manganese and mercury are likely to be among the metals of greatest concern. Arsenic, cadmium and hexavalent chromium are regulated based on risk of cancer. In contrast, the threshold for manganese is based on development of chronic neurological effects and the threshold for mercury is based on chronic neurological, kidney and developmental effects.

Some individuals are considered more vulnerable to health impacts from air pollution due to physical traits or higher exposures. Some of these more vulnerable groups include people with lung diseases or respiratory infections, people with heart or blood vessel problems, people who have had a heart attack or stroke, older adults, infants, children, pregnant women and people who smoke. Vulnerabilities related to social, economic, and environmental conditions, can also be important in understanding risk. As one example, a large cohort study found that men; black, Asian and Hispanic persons; and people eligible for Medicaid (interpreted as indication of low economic status) were found to have greater risk of death with exposure to PM2.5 than the general population. [32]

In the Baseline Health section of this report, rates of respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, and lung cancer are included as health impacts that have been associated with air pollution. These rates of diseases, along with factors of social vulnerability, serve as indicators of more populations in the Sumner and Bonney Lake region that are more likely to have negative health impacts with future air pollution exposure.

How are air quality impacts from asphalt plants regulated?

Local governments generally rely on regional or state agencies, such as the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) covering Pierce County and the great Puget Sound Area, to ensure air quality compliance. Most local code enforcement programs are not staffed or trained to provide ongoing monitoring of asphalt plants or other point sources.

The Notice of Construction application and equipment registration process managed by PSCAA and the Sand and Gravel General Permit issued by Washington State Department of Ecology address fugitive dust, emissions, and stormwater discharges, respectively, and those agencies have enforcement authority related to these areas.

The federal standards for hot mix asphalt plants (40 CFR 60 Subpart I) include the following requirements:  A requirement to performance test in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8  A requirement to not discharge filterable particulate in excess of .04 gr/dscf  A requirement to not cause or allow emissions in excess of 20 percent opacity

II. Health Evaluation 18

70  A requirement to use 40 CFR 60 Appendix A, Method 5 for particulate  A requirement to use 40 CFR 60 Appendix A, Method 9 for opacity.

Washington State Department of Ecology or the designated regional air pollution control agencies have jurisdiction to issue air permits to stationary sources per the Washington State Clean Air Act (RCW 70.94.152 and WACs 173‐400 and 173‐460). The general regulations for air pollution sources (WAC 173‐ 400) includes a requirement for a source to obtain Notice of Construction Order of Approval. New Source Review permitting sets case‐by‐case emission limits and operational requirements for asphalt plants. Such requirements can vary given the circumstances and nature of the specific project/proposal. Table 2 shows recent limits set by PSCAA for new asphalt plants.

Table 2. Recent limits set by PSCAA for new asphalt plants2. [28]

Recent PSCAA Asphalt Plant Limits Limit Total Particulate 0.027 gr/dscf corrected to 7 percent oxygen Filterable Particulate 0.014 gr/dscf corrected to 7 percent oxygen Stack Opacity 5 percent no more than three minutes in any hour Non‐methane/Non‐ethane VOC 0.032 lb/ton asphalt produced Carbon Monoxide 311.0 ppmvd corrected to 7 percent oxygen Oxides of Nitrogen 26.0 ppmvd corrected to 7 percent oxygen Recycled asphalt and shingle No visible emissions handling Asphaltic Concrete Storage Silos Enclosed and ducted to dryer/baghouse (No visible emissions) Asphalt oil storage tanks Passive condensers for VOC control (zero percent opacity except for one 15‐minute period per 24‐hours) Truck Loading 20 percent opacity no more than three minutes in an hour

Additionally, Washington State Department of Ecology tested twenty asphalt plants in 2011 and determined emission standards based technology present at the time. The federal regulations are currently under review and may revise the requirements discussed in this Health Impact Assessment.

Another state act, in addition to the State Environmental Policy Act, that may apply to asphalt plants and the asphalt production process is the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). MTCA establishes rules and regulations for toxic clean‐up and provides flexibility for site‐specific challenges. MTCA also applies a tax on the wholesale value of hazardous substances that is used for clean‐up and contamination prevention. [53] Polycyclic aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), discussed in the Air Quality section of this document, are considered a hazardous substance under

2 These limits are an amalgam of limits imposed by PSCAA NOCs 11812, 11328 and 11175.

II. Health Evaluation 19

71 the Act. Testing PAHs and other toxic site contamination on industrial property, may occur under disclosure laws when the property is being sold.

Many of regulations and rules for specific air pollutants and for emissions from asphalt plants are designed to protect health and safety.

In the Notice of Construction (NOC), an applicant would have to demonstrate in a site specific analysis that incorporates the selected parameters of the asphalt plant production and applied BACT that the neither the NAAQS nor ASILs would be exceeded, or else the project may not be approved. If only the ASILs are exceeded, the proponent may pursue approval under Second Tier Review, which would require a site‐specific risk assessment, demonstration of acceptable risk criteria, and public involvement through public notice and comment. Most projects in Washington do not undergo Second Tier Review, and this would be unlikely to occur for an asphalt plant NOC [8].

It is worth noting that air pollution regulations and standards are updated, as recently occurred for the revised Washington ASILs and SQERs used for compliance. Establishing regulations is an extensive and often contentious process. Separately, health research continues to contribute to the base of evidence of health effects related to asphalt plant emissions and the specific air pollutants in asphalt fumes, and it is possible that air pollution regulations potentially lag behind the best current evidence. As one example, there is growing evidence that health effects from

PM2.5 occur in the public even when concentrations are lower than the current NAAQS. [32, 54,

55] For this specific example, the finding in Ecology’s Asphalt Plant Report that the expected PM2.5 emissions from asphalt plants are more than 10 times less than the annual NAAQS concentration and more than 100 times less than the daily NAAQS concentration offers some reassurance that

PM2.5 from asphalt plants will not pose a great health concern.

Noise, Light & Vibration

Does noise from asphalt plants lead to health impacts?

Noise impacts result from various components of a typical hot‐mix asphalt plant, i.e. ventilators, drum, pneumatic systems, etc. Traffic noise is also generated from on‐site loaders and trucks bringing materials to and from the plant. Levels of noise generated at hot mix asphalt plants both onsite (for worker exposure) and off‐site (for general public exposure) are not well researched, and it is unclear if noise from an asphalt plant could lead to health impacts.

Considering health impacts from noise exposure in general, there is strong evidence that noise exposure is linked to increased cardiovascular disease and hypertension. [56‐67] Noise can trigger the body’s stress response [68] and can cause sleep disturbance. [69, 70] Research suggests that for aircraft noise and traffic noise exposure the risk for heart conditions increases in a meaningful3 way between 52 decibels and 75 decibels. The World Health Organization uses 50 decibels at

3 Statistically significant result, p <0.05

II. Health Evaluation 20

72 nighttime as its threshold for high blood pressure and heart attack impacts. [71] Although the studies looked at different heart health conditions, there was agreement that for each 10 dB increase in noise there is a 6% to 8% increase in population risk for heart health outcomes. Individual risk for these outcomes increases at a much lower rate.

Studies have also found that elevated noise exposure among children can lead to poorer performance on standardized tests [72‐77], and exposure in adults can lead to obesity and diabetes [78, 79], adverse reproductive outcomes and fertility problems in men and women [80], and brain tumors. [81] However, this research is not currently conclusive on these health effects.

Groups considered particularly susceptible to the effects of noise include smokers, children, the elderly, shift‐workers, and individuals with sleep disorders, mental disorders, and physical illnesses. Information about rates of cardiovascular disease and hypertension in the Sumner and Bonney Lake area are provided in Section III. Population Health, as an indicator of populations that might be more vulnerable to negative impacts of noise.

Light

Light pollution is sum of negative impacts of artificial light is a growing area of research. The most studied impacts to human health from light pollution is disruption of circadian rhythm, sleep patterns and alertness [82‐84]. There is indication that two‐hour exposures to light in the evening can disrupt circadian rhythm, but melatonin levels marking this recover within about 15 minutes, indicating the negative impact has a very short duration [82]. Several questions about light exposure impacts remain, such as how much the wavelength or color changes the impact, like blue light vs. white or red light [82]. We are not aware of data that indicates the levels of light generated from asphalt plants. Vibration

Health impacts in workers exposed to vibration, mainly through the use of tools, equipment and vehicles, have been studied for decades and have identified hearing loss and musculoskeletal impacts [85]. More recent studies of workers indicate that vibration could also be related to development of peripheral and cardiovascular disorders and gastrointestinal problems among others [86]. Vibrational impacts in workers generally occur after years of high level exposures. We are not aware of evidence of vibration resulting from off‐site exposures from asphalt plants with exposure levels that would occur in the general public.

Sumner Municipal Code Chapter 18.16.080 establishes performance standards for commercial districts and states that an operation shall not create noise, light, glare, vibration, or odor that would disturb the peace, quiet, and comfort of neighboring residents, retail uses, lodging and restaurant uses.

Traffic and Mobility

Traffic impacts would result from the hauling of materials both to and from the asphalt plant facility. This traffic would primarily consist of heavy trucks, which could impact the condition of

II. Health Evaluation 21

73 local streets as well as result in air and noise impacts as described in this document. The traffic study conducted by the City of Sumner may assess the magnitude of these impacts from increased traffic.

Water and Fisheries

The manufacture of hot‐mix asphalt may involve use of bitumen, aggregate or possibly recycled asphalt, fuels and oil stored and used to operate equipment at the site, and asphalt release agents4 used to clean plant equipment and truck beds. Classes of pollutants associated with some of the materials in asphalt production may include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), aliphatic hydrocarbons (ACHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), chlorinated solvents and metals (if recycled asphalt is as an ingredient), and other chemicals which have the potential to contaminate soils, water, and sediment if released into the environment.

Following a database search of health sciences literature, it appears that asphalt production facilities ‐ as a specific source of pollutants in soils, surface water or groundwater ‐ are not well researched. A literature search identified only four papers: findings from two government investigations testing for hazardous contaminants at current and former asphalt production and testing sites (Salisbury, NC and Fort Bragg, NC); one study examining the relationship between hot mix asphalt production and soil pollution (Port Harcourt, Nigeria); and one study that used laboratory methods to examine the potential for recycled asphalt to leach contaminants in water.5

Both hazardous site investigations studied contaminants at sites that had been used for not only asphalt production but also for asphalt testing, which involved the use of chlorinated solvents.4 Two of four studies found no evidence of PAHs in groundwater, but did find chlorinated solvents and other contaminants. [87, 88] Three of four studies detected PAHs, ACHs, VOCs and/or total petroleum hydrocarbons in surface soils in the immediate vicinity of asphalt plants. [87‐89] One study found evidence of pollutants in surface water, where bitumen had been directly piped into the waterway. [87]

Given the limited number of studies found, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the influence of asphalt production plants on contamination of surface and groundwater. Still, the two site investigations from North Carolina, the field study from Port Harcourt, and the laboratory study are instructive. First, they suggest that many of the materials used in asphalt production and

4 Historically, it was common practice to use diesel fuel, other petroleum products or chlorinated solvents as an asphalt release agent, but that is no longer an acceptable practice in the industry. More recently asphalt release agents are formulated to be biodegradable. 5 There is a more robust literature base regarding contamination of soils and waters attributable to asphalt pavement and storm water runoff from roadworks. Those papers were excluded, however, as this HIA focuses on questions pertaining to zoning for an asphalt production facility, rather than materials used in roadworks.

II. Health Evaluation 22

74 potential contaminants like PAHs have lower water solubility and more readily adsorb in soils. Second, though it would be inappropriate to broadly generalize about the likelihood of asphalt production plants to contaminate either soils or waters based on findings from these papers, these cases do illustrate how site neglect or mismanagement of hazardous materials have the potential to contaminate soils and water at the site.

Human health impacts associated with asphalt plants due to contamination of drinking water are likewise not well researched. ATSDR provided a consultation regarding the potential health risks and impacts from estimated exposures to contaminants in drinking water identified during the site investigation in Salisbury, North Carolina. That report concluded that human exposures to the concentration of contaminants detected at this particular site were not expected to cause adverse health effects. [90] This study taken on its own does not provide sufficient evidence to draw more generalized conclusions.

Comprehensive reviews of the scientific evidence regarding human health effects of exposure to various PAHs, VOCs, ACHs, and chlorinated solvents provide a broader picture of potential health risks from these agents, but do not specifically examine asphalt production facilities as sources of exposure. A review of the evidence for health effects of PAHs conducted to establish Canadian soil quality guidelines describes adverse effects based on exposure type and dose. [91] In 2009, the EPA published a peer‐reviewed report summarizing approaches to understanding health effects of complex mixtures of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons. [92] A comprehensive review of bitumen (asphalt) conducted by a panel of experts under the World Health Organization and published as part of the International Chemical Assessment Series, noted the lack of data or studies of asphalt concentrations in environmental media, including drinking water and foodstuffs. [93]

Asphalt production plants have not been well studied as a specific source of pollutants in fish or shellfish. While PAHs have been monitored in fish tissue samples across the state, measured concentrations have been low and currently no fish advisories have been issued. PAHs are more likely to bioaccumulate in shellfish tissues. Unlike Washington’s marine shellfish, freshwater shellfish are considered unsafe. The Department of Fish and Wildlife prohibits harvest of freshwater clams and mussels from all Washington freshwater sources, contaminated freshwater shellfish are therefore an unlikely source of human exposure.

How are water quality impacts from asphalt plants regulated?

In Washington, the Sand and Gravel General Permit regulates discharges to surface waters and groundwater by industrial mining and processing operations, and covers activities related to hot mix asphalt plants production (NAICS 324121) and asphalt recycling (ECY001). [5]

Facilities operating under the permit must manage and monitor pH, turbidity (NTU), total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS) and oil sheen in any process water, mine dewatering water, and stormwater discharges. Discharges of process water from asphalt

II. Health Evaluation 23

75 production (NAICS 324121) to surface waters is not allowed and discharge from wet scrubbers to groundwater is not allowed (see Sand & Gravel General Permit, Table 2). Monitoring of groundwater discharges of process water from asphalt production facilities for pH is required quarterly with allowable pH between 6.5 and 8.5. Permittees must manage the site to prevent unauthorized activities (e.g., illegal dumping or spills) that could discharge pollutants to waters of the state.

Facilities must submit and follow a Site Management Plan that includes four main components: an Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (ESCP), a Monitoring Plan, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and a Spill Control Plan. The permit requires facilities to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to provide all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment (AKART).

A facility’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan must inventory any materials exposed to precipitation or run‐off at the site, including toxic materials or chemicals, fuels, and other petroleum products, and identify BMPs that will be used to comply with stormwater discharge limits. The updated 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington describes approved prevention, treatment and flow control BMPs as well as additional protective measures (APMs).

The City of Sumner has adopted the 2012 Ecology Stormwater Manual, which requires capture and treatment of all surface runoff from onsite activities, and establishes regulations with the aim of protecting downstream waters. The City also maintains an emergency spill response team to address accidental spills. The Sand & Gravel General Permit also requires spill kits on site at all stationary fueling stations, fuel transfer stations, mobile fueling units, and used oil storage/transfer stations.[5] Lack of spill kits may result in a permit violation.

Sumner Municipal Code (SMC) Chapter 13.48 describes the City of Sumner’s Stormwater Management Regulations, the purpose of which is to protect public health, safety and general welfare by establishing requirements for control of adverse impacts associated with increased stormwater runoff and water quality degradation for all sites receiving a city permit for land altering development.

The City of Sumner has also adopted Chapter 16.56 Wildlife Habitat Areas as part of the Sumner Municipal Code. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate development and the use of land in order to preserve and protect areas of critical and endangered fish and wildlife habitat; and to conform to the Washington State Growth Management Act.

II. Health Evaluation 24

Figure 3. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas as Defined by Pierce County (buffer distance 100 feet)

Taxes and Municipal Budgets

There is limited research on the complex relationship between taxes, municipal budgets and health outcomes. Most of the research focuses on health care spending. However, there is a growing body of evidence on social determinants of health (the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age), and how they are influenced by taxes through municipal budgets. [94, 95] So, in this way tax revenue generation does positively impact public health.

Tax Base and the Social Determinants of Health More directly, there is a fair amount of evidence showing that stronger tax base and higher property values are related to more public services and infrastructure investments. [96] The

II. Health Evaluation 25

77 research suggests that people with higher incomes are more likely to experience place‐based health benefits, meaning that their health and longevity is positively influenced by the conditions and assets in their living environment. [94, 97, 98] Even after adjusting for income and other attributes of individuals and households, health benefits appear to be associated with where people reside.

There is also strong evidence showing the inverse relationship. People with low incomes are more likely to live in poorer neighborhoods with weaker tax bases, thus reducing local resources that support public schools and other social services. [99] Entrenched patterns reflecting long‐ standing disadvantage often perpetuate cycles of socioeconomic failure and an inability for low‐ income neighborhoods to recover. Public policies have historically led to disinvestment in these neighborhoods, causing persistent segregation, fewer economic opportunities, increasing crime, and negative health impacts. [100] For example, one study found that “healthy adults residing in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods died at a higher rate than did people in relatively less deprived areas, even after accounting for individual‐level socioeconomic status, lifestyle practices, and medical history.” Smoking, diabetes, and other conditions are more common for people living in poor neighborhoods, independent of their income. [101]

Local jurisdictions can address health disparities through direct investment of resources in low‐ income or historically underserved areas.

Does tax generation from new development improve public health? Manufacturers, including asphalt production operations, pay Business and Occupation (B&O) taxes in Washington. These B&O taxes generate revenues for the state general fund, a portion of which goes to municipalities. Currently, Sumner does not collect a local B&O tax.

Development and operation of additional asphalt plants in Sumner or other locations in Pierce County would generate additional B&O tax revenue for the state general fund. However, it is important to note that Washington’s counties appropriate budgets differently, according to their particular needs and goals. [102] Identifying how or if increased tax revenue distributed to Pierce County would be spent on programs, policies or investments directly linked with health indicators is speculative and difficult to forecast. The Pierce County 2019 Budget shows approximately twelve percent of the total County budget going to support health and social services with 60 percent of those resources coming from local sources. Local tax revenues do directly support a substantial amount of the public health services across Pierce County.

Another important consideration is the relationship between tax revenue and economic development strategies and policies. While many public officials and economic development professionals promote real‐estate development as a strategy to expand tax base, this does not always occur. New developments, including manufacturing, can also have negative impacts on tax base, vacancy rates, property values, business investment, infrastructure costs, as well as the social determinants of health, if not planned and executed strategically. [103]

II. Health Evaluation 26

78 Recent research finds, based on International City/County Management Association Survey of over 11,000 municipalities and all counties across the US, those municipalities actively considering environmental sustainability and health equity have more successful economic development strategies and require lower levels of financial business incentives. These places are also more likely to have economic development plans that have involved the community in the planning process. [104‐106]

Economic Impacts

Do Asphalt Plants Create Jobs?

In general, manufacturing remains a vital part of the American economy employing 12.75 million workers and generating broader spillover effects throughout the economy. At the same time, the nature of manufacturing is shifting with the introduction of advanced technologies and the growth of the “made locally” movement. The viability of this evolving manufacturing sector depends on the availability of industrial sites and conditions that allow manufacturers to operate efficiently and profitably. It also depends on the availability of adequate labor. In recent years a growing number of manufacturing jobs throughout the country have gone unfilled, representing a lost opportunity for businesses that cannot take advantage of economic growth and for longtime city residents who might access these jobs. [107]

The relationship between asphalt production and job creation is not well researched. Therefore, this discussion relies heavily on actual data from the US Census and state databases as well as market research reports.

The nation has around 3,500 asphalt plants, at least one in every congressional district with a total of 14,923 employees in asphalt mix production and 67,367 employees in production of liquid asphalt. On average, an asphalt plant in may employ 20‐25 people. Each year, these plants produce a total of about 400 million tons of asphalt pavement material worth in excess of $30 billion. The asphalt manufacturing industry supports employment for more than 400,000 Americans in the asphalt production, aggregate production, and road construction sectors. Asphalt pavement material is a product composed of about 95 percent stone, sand, and gravel by weight, and about 5 percent asphalt cement, a petroleum product. [108]

According to the Washington State Department of Ecology database (PARIS), there are 163 active asphalt plants in the state with an estimated workforce of over 2000 employees engaged in production.

The Asphalt Manufacturing industry's national as well as state level performance closely follows developments in construction and road infrastructure building. The industry experienced revenue declines from 2010 to 2015. However, construction has recovered from 2015 to 2019. [109] There has been a strengthening demand from markets including a rebound in crude oil prices and an industry acceptance of new technologies and organic and chemical additives that have

II. Health Evaluation 27

79 increased stability and sustainability of the industry. The market is expected to support industry growth through 2024. [110] Do these jobs in asphalt manufacturing improve public health? In general, there is a fair amount of research on the relationship between employment and health, with some studies showing a positive effect of work on health and others showing no relationship or isolated effects. [95]

There is strong evidence of an association between unemployment and poorer health outcomes, but research is limited on the inverse relationship, work causing improved health. While unemployment is almost universally a negative experience and the strength of evidence is strong in the research linking unemployment to poor outcomes, especially poor mental health outcomes, employment may be positive or negative, depending on the nature of the job (e.g., stability, stress, hours, pay, etc.). [111]

Further, most studies note major limitations in our ability to draw broad conclusions on health and work, including job availability and quality. These are important considerations in how work affects health. Making a transition from unemployment to poor quality or unstable employment options can be detrimental to health. Limited job availability or poor job quality may moderate or reverse any positive effects of work. [112]

Generally, community health improves and morbidity declines as the economy has shifted from industrial jobs (which are often inherently more dangerous) to services jobs (where risk of injury is lower). However, job transitions on the individual level are highly variable, and depend largely on social support networks and resources such as retraining. [113]

II. Health Evaluation 28

80 III. Population Health

This section of the HIA describes population characteristics, including social determinants of health and baseline health conditions in Sumner with comparisons to Pierce County and Washington State. Health Determinants

The range of personal, social, economic, and environmental factors that influence health status are known as social determinants of health. Social vulnerability is a term that describes people or populations that are at risk for poor health because of their particular social, economic, and environmental conditions. The social determinants of health presented here are basic indicators of health that are not directly related to the proposed project. The social determinants of health data are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is an annual survey by the United States Census Bureau that collects information from a subset of the population.

This HIA includes 10 measures related to social determinants of health. These data are at the census tract level and roll up information from 2013 to 2017. Seven census tracts were combined defining the Sumner / Bonney Lake region, which is shown in Figure 4. In addition to the percentage of the population, the 90% confidence intervals are also displayed for each measure and region. Confidence intervals allow for statistical comparison between Washington State, Pierce County and the Sumner / Bonney Lake region. When the confidence intervals overlap, the values are considered statistically similar, which means there is not a meaningful difference between the two. Smaller populations typically have wider confidence intervals, which means that even values that appear to be very different may not be statistically significant.

Comparisons of 10 social determinants of health between Washington State, Pierce County, and the Sumner / Bonney Lake area are shown in Figure 5. Some notable differences include:

 A higher percentage of adults over 18 years old in Sumner / Bonney Lake have health insurance than in Pierce County and Washington State.  There are fewer people living with a disability in Sumner / Bonney Lake compared to Pierce County and Washington State.  There are fewer adults and children living in poverty in Sumner / Bonney Lake than Pierce County and Washington State.  A higher percentage of the Sumner / Bonney Lake population has high school degrees than Pierce County and Washington State.  Sumner / Bonney Lake has a smaller fraction of overcrowded and unaffordable housing than Pierce County.  The percentage of people in Sumner / Bonney Lake that report speaking English less than “very well” is lower than in Pierce County and Washington State.  Sumner / Bonney Lake has a higher percentage of single parent households than Washington State.

In general, the Sumner / Bonney Lake region has a smaller proportion of residents experiencing social vulnerabilities than Pierce County and Washington State. It is important to note that there are still families living below the poverty line, individuals with disabilities, adults without health insurance, and individuals facing unemployment in the Sumner / Bonney Lake region. These populations are at an

III. Population Health 29

81 increased risk for poor health outcomes. Health disparities are discussed in more detail in the 2019 Pierce County Community Health Assessment. [114]

Figure 4. Map of Sumner city limits and census tracts labeled with census tract numbers that define the Sumner / Bonney Lake region for the social determinants of health assessment

III. Population Health 30

82 Figure 5. Summary of social determinants of health in Sumner / Bonney Lake region, Pierce county, and Washington State with 90% confidence intervals. [115‐121]

% Children living in poverty

% Disability

% Less than high school degree

% Limited english

% Overcrowded housing Sumner and Bonney Lake Region Pierce County % Population living in poverty Washington State % Single parent households

% Unaffordable housing

% Unemployed

% Without health Insurance

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Baseline Health

Washington State Department of Health reviewed health conditions and diseases related to exposure to noise and air pollution. Figure 7 shows hospitalization rates that were age‐adjusted for Washington State, Pierce County, Sumner, and Bonney Lake. Sumner and Bonney Lake were defined using zip codes shown in Figure 6, which is the finest geography available for hospitalization data. Age‐adjustment is a standard approach to allow for comparison of different populations (state vs. county vs. neighborhood) that might have different age structures, like elderly or younger people, that would change the expected rate of outcomes. This analysis combines 3 years of data (2016 to 2018) to provide higher numbers that would allow for better comparisons in smaller populations. The 95% confidence intervals allow for statistical comparison between these regions. When the confidence intervals overlap, the rates are considered statistically similar, which means there is not a clear difference between the two. Smaller populations typically have wider confidence intervals, which means that even rates that appear to be very different may not be statistically significant. Findings include:

 Hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction and diseases of the respiratory system are more prevalent in Bonney Lake than Pierce County and Washington State.

III. Population Health 31

83  Hospitalization for cardiac dysrhythmias is more common in Bonney Lake than Sumner, Pierce County, and Washington State.  There is not a statistically significant difference in hospitalization rates between Sumner, Bonney Lake and Pierce County for the majority of health measures evaluated.  In general, Pierce County, Sumner, and Bonney Lake had higher hospitalization rates for health outcomes related to noise exposure and air pollution than Washington State.

III. Population Health 32

84 Figure 6. Map of Sumner city limits and zip codes used in the baseline health assessment

III. Population Health 33

85 Figure 7. Hospitalization rates for health conditions related in noise and air pollution exposure in Sumner, Bonney Lake, Pierce County and Washington State with 95% confidence intervals [122]

Diseaes of the Heart*

Diseases of the respiratory system**

Bonney Lake (zip code 98391) Sumner (zip code 98390) Hypertension Pierce County

Washington State

Lung Cancer

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Age Adjsuted Hospitalization Rate per 100,000 People

*Diseases of the hearth includes ischemic heart diseases and myocardial infarction, among several other heart diseases

**Diseases of the respiratory system includes respiratory infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchiectasis, asthma, among several other respiratory diseases

III. Population Health 34

86 IV. Regulating Asphalt Plants

The regulating and permitting of asphalt plants is a shared responsibility between local, regional and state agencies. Local governments, under the state’s Growth Management Act, regulate siting of asphalt plants through zoning codes, and control site design and operation through development regulations including hours of operation, lighting, noise, traffic movement, and building orientation.

Ongoing Monitoring Local governments generally rely on regional or state agencies, such as the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) covering Pierce County and the great Puget Sound Area, to ensure air quality compliance. Most local code enforcement programs are not staffed or trained to provide ongoing monitoring of asphalt plants or other point sources. The Notice of Construction Order of Approval managed by PSCAA and the Sand and Gravel General Permit issued by Washington State Department of Ecology address fugitive dust, emissions, odors and stormwater discharges, respectively, and those agencies have enforcement authority related to these areas. Washington Administrative Code (WAC 173.60.040), establishes maximum permissible environmental noise levels between noise sources and receiving sites. While this state code provides a standard, local governments have the responsibility of noise abatement consistent with this code. It is generally enforced on the basis of complaints through a local code enforcement program.

Sumner’s Development Regulations Sumner development regulations that would be applicable to an asphalt plants include limits on outdoor storage of materials (not to exceed 40% of the building footprint or 15% of the lot area) and requiring materials to be wrapped or enclosed to prevent windblown debris. Other performance standards address lighting, odor (no use shall be permitted which creates annoying odor in such quantities as to be readily detectable beyond the boundaries of the site), vibration, and visual quality of fencing (if chain link, then black or green coated only). [123]

Specifically, Sumner Municipal Code Chapter 8.14 addresses noise control. This chapter sets decibel (dBA) limits at the property line. In Chapter 8.14.050 there is a table showing dBA limits per environmental designation for noise abatement classification. Chapter 8.14.080 establishes a 10 dBA reduction between 10:00pm and 7:00am.

Asphalt plants within Sumner are currently permitted in the M‐1 and M‐2 industrial districts, however they may be prohibited, or may be limited in size, scope or location to minimize

IV. Regulating Asphalt Plants 35

87 incompatibilities or health and safety concerns where a Planned Mixed‐use Development occurs within M‐1 or M‐2 industrial district. [123] Buildings within an M‐1 or M‐2 zone are required to be setback 50 feet from any common boundary with a residentially zoned property, and a required landscaped setback of 25 foot and 35 foot, respectively. Accessory outdoor storage of materials within the M‐1 district are screened from adjacent properties by a 12‐foot landscaped buffer consisting of at least 50% evergreen species. [123]

IV. Regulating Asphalt Plants 36

88 V. Conclusions and Recommendations

This section is intended to provide a summary of health related recommendations that are generalizable and transferable to asphalt plants and the asphalt production process as regulated in Washington State and Pierce County.

In spite of a robust regulatory and permitting process with shared responsibility at the local, regional and state levels, asphalt production may still have the potential for impacts, particularly due to equipment failure, human error, and lack of ongoing monitoring.

Recommendations to Prevent Health Related Impacts:

The following options are within local jurisdiction and intended as recommendations to expand existing regulations beyond current federal, state regulations, and local requirements including but not limited to City of Sumner Noise Code (SMC 8.14), zoning code regarding lighting and vibration, and federal, state, and local stormwater and water quality requirements.

 Require submittal of regular, on‐going air or noise monitoring, or monitoring well reports documenting compliance to be submitted to the Code Compliance Officer.  Require that stockpiled materials be handled in specific ways that reduce particulate, fugitive dust, and odors (i.e, fully enclosed in a structure, covered). [91].  Require capture or minimization of emissions in place, such as requiring refrigerated control on condensers used to limit emissions and enclosure of the truck load‐out process to reduce fugitive emissions. These would be evaluated during Best Available Control Technology review.  Require capture or minimization of emissions from asphalt or materials on vehicles transporting these to and from the asphalt production plant.  Limit hours of operation based on further study could minimize noise impacts and exposure to air pollution. (Environmental review at the time of permitting could provide additional information about noise and other factors).  Limit the amount of hot mix asphalt produced or produced in specific areas based on further study.  Comply with the 2019 Stormwater Management Manual by requiring prevention, treatment and flow control BMPs as well as additional protective measures (APMs).  Prevent water quality impacts in the area by properly maintaining the well structures and coverings and keeping contaminants at least 100 feet away from well openings.  Asphalt plants should not be sited in FEMA Flood Zones.  Require the use of best practices in use of sustainable materials and production practices as well as management practices to minimize spills and leaks in asphalt manufacturing.

V. Conclusion and Recommendations 37

89 References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health Impact Assessment. Health Places Septemer 19, 2016 [cited 2017; Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/hia.htm. 2. Harris County, Types of HIAs and the HIA Process, Harris County Public Health, Editor. 2019: Harris County, TX. 3. US Environmental Protection Agency, Hot Mix Asphalt Plants Emission Assessment Report, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Editor. 2000: Research Triangle Park, NC. 4. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, Additional Notice of Construction Application Requirements for Asphalt Batch Plants. 2007. 5. Washington State Department of Ecology, Fact Sheet for Sand and Gravel General Permit, Toxics Cleanup Program, Editor. 2015. 6. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Environmental Fact Sheet. 2011. 7. Washington Department of Ecology, Technical Support Document for the Asphalt Plant (Portable and Stationary) General Order, Air Quality Program, Editor. Jan 25, 2011. 8. Palcisko, G., Personal Communication with WA Department of Ecology Air Quality Program Toxicologist: Updates of analysis provided in the 2011 Ecology Technical Report for the Asphalt Plant General Order, J. Fox, Editor. 2019. 9. US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Consultation: APAC Carolina Inc. and Associated Asphalt Inc., Salisbury, Rowan County, NC, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Editor. 2007: Atlanta, Georgia. 10. US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Consultation: Results of Air Exposure Investigation Prima Asphalt Concrete Inc. Holbrook, Suffolk County, NY, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Editor. 2005: Atlanta, GA. 11. US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Consultation: Evaluation of Exposure from the Former Valley Asphalt Production Site, Spanish Fork, Utah County, UT, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Editor. 2005: Atlanta, GA. 12. US Environmental Protection Agency, Near Roadway Air Pollution and Health: Frequently Asked Questions, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Editor. August 2014. 13. Karner, A.A., D.S. Eisinger, and D.A. Niemeier, Near‐roadway air quality: synthesizing the findings from real‐world data. Environ Sci Technol, 2010. 44(14): p. 5334‐44. 14. Iowa State University. Iowa Environmental Mesonet. [cited 2019; Available from: http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/sites/locate.php?network=WA_ASOS. 15. Washington State Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction. 2020. 16. US Department of Health and Human Services, Hazard Review: Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Asphalt, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Editor. 2000: Cincinnati, OH. 17. Hicks, J.B., Asphalt Industry Cross‐Sectional Exposure Assessment Study. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 1995. 10(10): p. 840‐848. 18. Gamble, J.F., et al., Exposure‐response of asphalt fumes with changes in pulmonary function and symptoms. Scand J Work Environ Health, 1999. 25(3): p. 186‐206. 19. Boffetta, P., et al., Cancer mortality among European asphalt workers: an international epidemiological study. I. Results of the analysis based on job titles. Am J Ind Med, 2003. 43(1): p. 18‐27.

References 38

90 20. Hansen, E.S., Cancer incidence in an occupational cohort exposed to bitumen fumes. Scand J Work Environ Health, 1989. 15(2): p. 101‐5. 21. Raulf‐Heimsoth, M., et al., The Human Bitumen Study: executive summary. Arch Toxicol, 2011. 85 Suppl 1: p. S3‐9. 22. Raulf‐Heimsoth, M., et al., Irritative effects of vapours and aerosols of bitumen on the airways assessed by non‐invasive methods. Arch Toxicol, 2011. 85 Suppl 1: p. S41‐52. 23. Bergdahl, I.A. and B. Jarvholm, Cancer morbidity in Swedish asphalt workers. Am J Ind Med, 2003. 43(1): p. 104‐8. 24. Hooiveld, M., et al., Lung cancer mortality in a Dutch cohort of asphalt workers: evaluation of possible confounding by smoking. Am J Ind Med, 2003. 43(1): p. 79‐87. 25. Watkins, D.K., et al., A case control study of lung cancer and non‐malignant respiratory disease among employees in asphalt roofing manufacturing and asphalt production. J Occup Environ Med, 2002. 44(6): p. 551‐8. 26. Mundt, K.A., et al., Cancer Risk Associated With Exposure to Bitumen and Bitumen Fumes: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. J Occup Environ Med, 2018. 60(1): p. e6‐e54. 27. Adam, M., et al., Adult lung function and long‐term air pollution exposure. ESCAPE: a multicentre cohort study and meta‐analysis. Eur Respir J, 2015. 45(1): p. 38‐50. 28. Renninger, B., Personal Communication with Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Engineer: Odor Complaints and Recent Limits Set by PSCAA for New Asphalt Plants, J. Fox, Editor. 2019. 29. Hirasawa, Y., et al., Subjective unpleasantness of malodors induces a stress response. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 2019. 106: p. 206‐215. 30. Blanes‐Vidal, V., Air pollution from biodegradable wastes and non‐specific health symptoms among residents: direct or annoyance‐mediated associations? Chemosphere, 2015. 120: p. 371‐ 7. 31. Dominici, F., et al., Fine particulate air pollution and hospital admission for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Jama, 2006. 295(10): p. 1127‐34. 32. Di, Q., et al., Air Pollution and Mortality in the Medicare Population. N Engl J Med, 2017. 376(26): p. 2513‐2522. 33. Sarnat, S.E., et al., Fine particulate matter components and emergency department visits for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases in the St. Louis, Missouri‐Illinois, metropolitan area. Environ Health Perspect, 2015. 123(5): p. 437‐44. 34. Gauderman, W.J., et al., The effect of air pollution on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age. N Engl J Med, 2004. 351(11): p. 1057‐67. 35. Hayes, R.B., et al., Benzene and the dose‐related incidence of hematologic neoplasms in China. Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine‐‐National Cancer Institute Benzene Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst, 1997. 89(14): p. 1065‐71. 36. Sorahan, T., Mortality of UK oil refinery and petroleum distribution workers, 1951‐2003. Occup Med (Lond), 2007. 57(3): p. 177‐85. 37. Peel, J.L., et al., Ambient air pollution and respiratory emergency department visits. Epidemiology, 2005. 16(2): p. 164‐74. 38. Schwartz, J., M.A. Bind, and P. Koutrakis, Estimating Causal Effects of Local Air Pollution on Daily Deaths: Effect of Low Levels. Environ Health Perspect, 2017. 125(1): p. 23‐29. 39. Romundstad, P., A. Andersen, and T. Haldorsen, Cancer incidence among workers in six Norwegian aluminum plants. Scand J Work Environ Health, 2000. 26(6): p. 461‐9. 40. Silverman, R.A. and K. Ito, Age‐related association of fine particles and ozone with severe acute asthma in New York City. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 2010. 125(2): p. 367‐373.e5. 41. Costantino, J.P., C.K. Redmond, and A. Bearden, Occupationally related cancer risk among coke oven workers: 30 years of follow‐up. J Occup Environ Med, 1995. 37(5): p. 597‐604.

References 39

91 42. Atkinson, R.W., et al., Epidemiological time series studies of PM2.5 and daily mortality and hospital admissions: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Thorax, 2014. 69(7): p. 660‐5. 43. Requia, W.J., et al., Global Association of Air Pollution and Cardiorespiratory Diseases: A Systematic Review, Meta‐Analysis, and Investigation of Modifier Variables. Am J Public Health, 2017: p. e1‐e8. 44. Shah, A.S., et al., Short term exposure to air pollution and stroke: systematic review and meta‐ analysis. BMJ, 2015. 350: p. h1295. 45. He, D., et al., Association between particulate matter 2.5 and diabetes mellitus: A meta‐analysis of cohort studies. J Diabetes Investig, 2017. 8(5): p. 687‐696. 46. Xu, X., S.U. Ha, and R. Basnet, A Review of Epidemiological Research on Adverse Neurological Effects of Exposure to Ambient Air Pollution. Front Public Health, 2016. 4: p. 157. 47. Heusinkveld, H.J., et al., Neurodegenerative and neurological disorders by small inhaled particles. Neurotoxicology, 2016. 56: p. 94‐106. 48. Li, X., et al., Association between ambient fine particulate matter and preterm birth or term low birth weight: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis. Environ Pollut, 2017. 227: p. 596‐ 605. 49. Lamichhane, D.K., et al., A meta‐analysis of exposure to particulate matter and adverse birth outcomes. Environ Health Toxicol, 2015. 30: p. e2015011. 50. Armstrong, B., et al., Lung cancer risk after exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: a review and meta‐analysis. Environ Health Perspect, 2004. 112(9): p. 970‐8. 51. US Department of Health and Human Services. Toxic Substances Portal. [cited 2019; Available from: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/indexAZ.asp#B. 52. Khalade, A., et al., Exposure to benzene at work and the risk of leukemia: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Environ Health, 2010. 9: p. 31. 53. Washington State Department of Ecology, Model Toxics Control Act Regulation and Statute, Toxics Control Program, Editor. 2013. 54. Bowe, B., et al., Burden of Cause‐Specific Mortality Associated With PM2.5 Air Pollution in the United States. JAMA Netw Open, 2019. 2(11): p. e1915834. 55. Wei, Y., et al., Short term exposure to fine particulate matter and hospital admission risks and costs in the Medicare population: time stratified, case crossover study. Bmj, 2019. 367: p. l6258. 56. Babisch, W., et al., Traffic noise and risk of myocardial infarction. Epidemiology, 2005. 16(1): p. 33‐40. 57. Beelen, R., et al., The joint association of air pollution and noise from road traffic with cardiovascular mortality in a cohort study. Occup Environ Med, 2009. 66(4): p. 243‐50. 58. Correia, A.W., et al., Residential exposure to aircraft noise and hospital admissions for cardiovascular diseases: multi‐airport retrospective study. Bmj, 2013. 347: p. f5561. 59. Floud, S., et al., Exposure to aircraft and road traffic noise and associations with heart disease and stroke in six European countries: a cross‐sectional study. Environ Health, 2013. 12: p. 89. 60. Gan, W.Q., et al., Association of long‐term exposure to community noise and traffic‐related air pollution with coronary heart disease mortality. Am J Epidemiol, 2012. 175(9): p. 898‐906. 61. Hansell, A.L., et al., Aircraft noise and cardiovascular disease near Heathrow airport in London: small area study. Bmj, 2013. 347: p. f5432. 62. Pyko, A., et al., Long‐term transportation noise exposure and incidence of ischaemic heart disease and stroke: a cohort study. Occup Environ Med, 2019. 76(4): p. 201‐207. 63. Selander, J., et al., Long‐term exposure to road traffic noise and myocardial infarction. Epidemiology, 2009. 20(2): p. 272‐9. 64. Seidler, A., et al., Myocardial Infarction Risk Due to Aircraft, Road, and Rail Traffic Noise. Dtsch Arztebl Int, 2016. 113(24): p. 407‐14.

References 40

92 65. Chang, T.Y., et al., Occupational noise exposure and incident hypertension in men: a prospective cohort study. Am J Epidemiol, 2013. 177(8): p. 818‐25. 66. Evrard, A.S., et al., Does aircraft noise exposure increase the risk of hypertension in the population living near airports in France? Occup Environ Med,): 2017. 74(2 p. 123‐129. 67. Meline, J., et al., Road, rail, and air transportation noise in residential and workplace neighborhoods and blood pressure (RECORD Study). Noise Health, 2015. 17(78): p. 308‐19. 68. Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, W.H. Organization, Editor. 2009, World Health Organization: Copenhagen, Denmark. 69. Basner, M., B. Griefahn, and M. Berg, Aircraft noise effects on sleep: mechanisms, mitigation and research needs. Noise Health, 2010. 12(47): p. 95‐109. 70. Hume, K.I., M. Brink, and M. Basner, Effects of environmental noise on sleep. Noise Health, 2012. 14(61): p. 297‐302. 71. Dzhambov, A.M. and D.D. Dimitrova, Children's blood pressure and its association with road traffic noise exposure ‐ A systematic review with meta‐analysis. Environ Res, 2017. 152: p. 244‐ 255. 72. Clark, C., et al., Exposure‐effect relations between aircraft and road traffic noise exposure at school and reading comprehension: the RANCH project. American journal of epidemiology, 2005. 163(1): p. 27‐37. 73. Basner, M., et al., Auditory and non‐auditory effects of noise on health. The Lancet, 2014. 383(9925): p. 1325‐1332. 74. Shield, B. and J.E. Dockrell, External and internal noise surveys of London primary schools. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2004. 115(2): p. 730‐738. 75. Shield, B.M. and J.E. Dockrell, The effects of noise on children at school: a review. Building Acoustics, 2003. 10(2): p. 97‐116. 76. Stansfeld, S.A., et al., Aircraft and road traffic noise and children's cognition and health: a cross‐ national study. The Lancet, 2005. 365(9475): p. 1942‐1949. 77. Stansfeld, S.A. and M.P. Matheson, Noise pollution: non‐auditory effects on health. British medical bulletin, 2003. 68(1): p. 243‐257. 78. Dzhambov, A.M., Long‐term noise exposure and the risk for type 2 diabetes: a meta‐analysis. Noise Health, 2015. 17(74): p. 23‐33. 79. Pyko, A., et al., Exposure to traffic noise and markers of obesity. Occup Environ Med, 2015. 72(8): p. 594‐601. 80. Ristovska, G., H.E. Laszlo, and A.L. Hansell, Reproductive outcomes associated with noise exposure ‐ a systematic review of the literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2014. 11(8): p. 7931‐52. 81. Chen, M., et al., Risk Factors of Acoustic Neuroma: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. Yonsei Med J, 2016. 57(3): p. 776‐83. 82. Tahkamo, L., T. Partonen, and A.K. Pesonen, Systematic review of light exposure impact on human circadian rhythm. Chronobiol Int, 2019. 36(2): p. 151‐170. 83. Souman, J.L., et al., Acute alerting effects of light: A systematic literature review. Behav Brain Res, 2018. 337: p. 228‐239. 84. Cho, Y., et al., Effects of artificial light at night on human health: A literature review of observational and experimental studies applied to exposure assessment. Chronobiol Int, 2015. 32(9): p. 1294‐310. 85. Bovenzi, M., Exposure‐response relationship in the hand‐arm vibration syndrome: an overview of current epidemiology research. Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 1998. 71(8): p. 509‐19. 86. Krajnak, K., Health effects associated with occupational exposure to hand‐arm or whole body vibration. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev, 2018. 21(5): p. 320‐334.

References 41

93 87. Campbell, T.R., Soil, Water, and Streambed Quality at a Demolished Asphalt Plant, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, 1992‐94. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report,, 1996(95‐4215): p. 92. 88. ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller of North Carolina, I., Corrective Action Plan, Former Asphalt Site No. 45, Salisbury, North Carolina. 2000. 89. Osuji, L., I. Ilechukwu, and M.O. Onyema, Distribution and sources of aliphatic hydrocarbons (AHCs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) within the vicinity of a hot mix asphalt (HMA) plant in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. International Journal of Environmental Sciences,, 2012. 3(No. 1): p. 10. 90. US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Consultation: APAC Carolina Inc., Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Editor. 2007: Atlanta, Georgia. 91. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for Carcinogenic and other Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Environmental and Human Health Effects),. 2008. p. 218. 92. US Environmental Protection Agency, Provisional Peer‐Reviewed Toxicity Values for Complex Mixtures of Aliphatic and Aromatic Hydrocarbons Office of Research and Development, Editor. 2009: Cincinnatti, OH. 93. World Health Organization, ASPHALT (BITUMEN). Concise International Chemical Assessment Document Series,, 2004. Document 59: p. 50. 94. Laudan, A., et al., How Are Income and Wealth Linked to Health and Longevity?, in Income and Health Initiative Urban Institute, Editor. 2015. 95. Antonisse, L. and R. Garfield, The Relationship Between Work and Health: Findings from a Literature Review, in Medicaid, Kaiser Family Foundation, Editor. 2018. 96. Health Poverty Action, Health and tax: Why tax matters for health (Issue brief). December, 2015. 97. Braveman, P., S. Egerter, and C. Barclay, Exploring the Social Determinants of Health: Income, Wealth and Health, in Issue Brief Series, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Editor. 2011: Princeton, NJ. 98. Chetty, R., M. Stepner, and S. Abraham, The Association Between Income and Life Expectancy in the United States, 2001‐2014. JAMA, 2016. 315: p. 1750–1766. 99. Gorski, P.C., Reaching and Teaching Students in Poverty: Strategies for Erasing the Opportunity Gap 2013, New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 100. Sharkey, P., Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress toward Racial Equality. . 2013, Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press. . 101. Zhang, X., M.E. Warner, and G.C. Homsy, Environment, Equity, and Economic Development Goals: Understanding Differences in Local Economic Development Strategies Economic Development Quarterly,, 2017. 31(3). 102. McCarthy, P., Local Government Financial Reporting System, Office of the Washington State Auditor, Editor. 2017. 103. Gsottschneider, R., Understanding the Tax Base Consequences of Local Economic Development Programs. 2019. 104. McCullough, J. and J.P. Leider, Government Spending in Health and Nonhealth Sectors Associated with Improvement in County Health Rankings. Health Affairs, , 2016. 35: p. 2037‐ 2043. 105. Bradley, E.H., et al., Variation in health outcomes: The role of spending on social services, public health, and health care, 2000–09. Health Affairs, 2016. 35(5): p. 760‐768. 106. Zhang, X., M.E. Warner, and G.C. Homsy, Environment, Equity, and Economic Development Goals: Understanding Differences in Local Economic Development Strategies Economic Development Quarterly, 2017. 31(3).

References 42

94 107. Voltolini, P. and D. Greenberg, Connecting Local People to the Prosperity of Place Workforce Development Meets Industrial Revitalization. 2019, Local Initiatives Support Corporation,. 108. Asphalt Pavement Alliance, Jobs in the Asphalt Pavement Industry: A Profile of the Men and Women Who Build Our Nation’s Infrastructure 2010. 109. Ibisworld, Asphalt Manufacturing in the US ‐ Industry Market Research Report. 2019. 110. Tutu, K.A. and Y.A. Tuffour, Warm Mix Asphalt and Pavement Sustainability: A Review. Open Journal of Civil Engineering, 2016. Vol.6. 111. Waddell, G., Burton, A.K., , Is Work Good for Your Health and Well‐Being, U.D.f.W.a. Pensions, Editor. 2006. 112. Burgard, S.A. and K.Y. Lin, Bad Jobs, Bad Health? How Work and Working Conditions Contribute to Health Disparities. Am Behav Sci., 2013. 57. 113. Kampanellou, E., Rethinking Deindustrialization and Health Across Time and Space, in Geography & Geosciences 2014, University of St. Andrews,. 114. Tacoma Pierce County Health Department, Community Health Assessment. 2019 Pierce County, WA. 115. US Census Bureau, Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months (S1701), A.C. Survey, Editor. 2013 ‐ 2017, American FactFinder. 116. US Census Bureau, Disability Characteristics (S1810), American Community Survey, Editor. 2013 ‐ 2017, American FactFinder. 117. US Census Bureau, Selected Social Characteristics in the United States (DP02), American Community Survey, Editor. 2013 ‐ 2017, American FactFinder. 118. US Census Bureau, Limited English Speaking (S1602), American Community Survey, Editor. 2013 ‐ 2017, American FactFinder. 119. US Census Bureau, Selected Housing Characteristics (DP04), American Community Survey, Editor. 2013 ‐ 2017, American FactFinder. 120. US Census Bureau, Employment Status (S2301), American Community Survey, Editor. 2013 ‐ 2017, American FactFinder. 121. US Census Bureau, Selected Economic Characteristics (DP03), American Community Survey, Editor. 2013 ‐ 2017, American FactFinder. 122. Washington State Department of Health, Washington Hospitalization Discharge Data. 2016 ‐ 2018, Center for Health Statistics,. 123. AHBL, Regulatory Options for Asphalt Plants. 2018, City of Covington.

References 43

95 MEMORANDUM Date: December 19, 2019 TG: 1.19063.00 To: Eric Mendenhall and Michael Kosa – City of Sumner From: Stef Herzstein, PE, PTOE and Jessica Lambert – Transpo Group Subject: Sumner Asphalt Batch Plan – Traffic Analysis

The following memorandum summarizes the traffic analysis completed for a potential asphalt batch plant located in the City of Sumner. This memorandum includes an overview of the project description, trip distribution and assignment, and provides a review of traffic impacts based on work previously completed for the City of Sumner.

Background The City of Sumner is considering the potential traffic impacts of developing an asphalt batch plant at one of two existing gravel mining sites. The first location (Location 1) is the Corliss Resources site located at 16805 64th Street E, east of the Sumner Tapps Highway E and north of 64th Street E. The second location (Location 2) is the City Transfer, Inc. (CTI) site located at 2720 E Valley Highway E, east of East Valley Highway E and south of 24th Street E. This analysis assumes that the asphalt batch plant produces approximately 1,250 tons of asphalt per day. The site locations 1 and 2 are shown on Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively.

Figure 1 Location 1 Site Vicinity of 16805 64th Street E

96 Figure 2 Location 2 Site Vicinity of 2720 E Valley Highway E

Project Trip Generation Daily and peak hour trip generation is estimated based on the maximum amount of asphalt produced by the plant during a 10-hour workday and a one-hour period, respectively. This study assumes the on-site asphalt mixer is capable of producing 125 tons of asphalt per hour. This production equates to 1,250 tons (2,500,000 pounds) of asphalt during a 10-hour workday. The payload of an average-sized gravel truck can hold up to 33,000 pounds of asphalt; therefore, the maximum number of outbound truck trips is estimated to be 8 trips per hour. This is a conservatively high estimate since gravel truck-trailer combinations can hold upwards of 66,500 pounds and would generate about one-half the number of trips. Assuming hourly inbound trips equal outbound trips, it is estimated that the asphalt plant would generate no more than 16 peak hour truck trips (8 inbound/8 outbound). If the plant operated at peak production for the 10-hour workday, approximately 160 daily truck trips would be generated.

In addition to gravel truck traffic, historic gravel pit data1 from other locations suggests that the asphalt plant’s operation also generates trips by the general public and employees, recognizing that the frequency of these trips is considerably less than commercial truck traffic. Therefore, in addition to gravel truck traffic, it is estimated that 20 additional daily trips would be attributable to the sale of asphalt to the general public and employees. Assuming an even distribution of these trips throughout the day, the asphalt plant would generate 2 peak hour trips (1 inbound/1 outbound) in addition to the 16 peak hour truck trips. Site-generated trip generation is summarized in Table 1.

1 Asphalt Plant at Cape George Gravel Pit Transportation Assessment, Prepared for Lakeside Industries by Transpo Group, November 15, 2000

97 Table 1. Project Trip Generation Summary Weekday Peak Hour Trip Type Daily In Out Total Commercial Gravel Trucks 160 8 8 16 General Public/Employee 20 1 1 2 Total 180 9 9 18 Source: Transpo Group

As shown in Table 1, the proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 180 weekday daily trips with 18 occurring during the weekday peak hour.

Trip Distribution & Assignment Although the day-to-day distribution of this traffic would vary depending of the particular project location(s), vehicles to/from each site are anticipated to utilize facilities that provide connectivity to the region such as SR 410 and SR 167. The trip distribution reflects the general travel patterns created by the market area for which the plant would serve. The distribution and assignment for Location 1 is shown on Figure 3 and Location 2 on Figure 4.

Figure 3 Trip Distribution & Assignment - Location 1

98 Figure 4 Trip Distribution & Assignment - Location 2

Traffic Impacts A review of traffic operations near the two potential sites was completed to understand potential impacts of an asphalt batch plant. Traffic operations for an intersection can be described alphabetically with a range of levels of service (LOS A through F), with LOS A indicating free- flowing traffic and LOS F indicating extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. At signalized intersections, LOS is measured in average control delay per vehicle and is typically reported using the intersection delay. At side-street stop-controlled intersections, like the site access, LOS is measured in average delay per vehicle and is reported for the worst operating movement of the intersection.

Given construction operations, peak truck activity is more likely to occur during in the weekday AM and mid-day hours with less trips occurring during the weekday PM peak hour. Conservatively, for purposes of the analysis review, operations were reviewed for the weekday PM peak hour when traffic volumes are typically highest.

99 Location 1 – 64th Street E As shown in Figure 3, site access is assumed along 64th Street E. Future 2035 weekday PM peak hour traffic operations in the vicinity of the site are reviewed based on the East Sumner Neighborhood Plan Update2 (ESNP), Sumner 2015 Transportation Plan, and analysis completed as part of the 166th Avenue E/SR 410 Interchange improvement project. The future conditions analysis assumes planned improvements along the 166th Avenue East/Sumner Tapps Highway corridor at the key intersections. Several alternatives are being considered at this time including the addition of turn lanes at the existing signalized intersection or construction of a roundabout at the Sumner Tapps Highway E/64th Street E intersection. The analysis reported below assumed signal improvements at the Sumner Tapps Highway E/64th Street E intersection. Table 2 provides a summary of existing and future 2035 forecast operations along Sumner Tapps Highway E without the 62nd Street E connection (consistent with the updated ESNP). Detailed LOS worksheets are included in Attachment A.

Table 2. Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS Summary – Location 1 Future With Intersection Improvements Without Asphalt With Asphalt Existing Batch Plant Batch Plant Traffic Intersection/Analysis Basis Control LOS2 Delay3 LOS2 Delay3 LOS2 Delay3 2035 Adopted ESNP Sumner Tapps Hwy E/60th St E1 -4 F >50 C 23 C 23 2040 166th Avenue E/SR 410 Interchange Improvement Project Sumner Tapps Hwy E/64th St E5 Signal6 F 102 C 27 C 28 1. Analysis from Sumner 2015 Transportation Plan for existing conditions and East Sumner Neighborhood Plan Update for future 2035 conditions. 2. Level of service based on Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 3. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 4. Intersection is side-street stop-controlled under existing conditions and signalized under future 2035 conditions. 5. Existing and future conditions analysis is based on the analysis completed for the Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) for the Sumner Tapps Highway E/64th Street E intersection. 6. Future without and with-project project operations reported for the potential signalized intersection improvements. Without and with- project operations under roundabout operations are anticipated to operate at LOS A under both options currently being reviewed in the Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE).

As shown in Table 2, existing operations at both intersections are LOS F. With anticipated improvements in the area and signalization of the Sumner Tapps Highway/60th Street E intersection, both study intersections are forecast to operate at LOS C under future 2035 without and with-project weekday PM peak hour conditions. The asphalt batch plant results in minimal increase in average intersection delay.

The 166th Avenue E/SR 410 Interchange improvement project is currently in the planning phase, but initial forecast volumes were reviewed. Based on 2040 weekday PM peak hour forecast volumes and trip distribution and assignment shown on Figure 3, project-generated trips would represent less than 1 percent of the total entering vehicles at the 166th Avenue E/64th Street, 166th Avenue E/SR 410 WB Ramps, and 166th Avenue E/SR 410 EB Ramps intersections. Traffic volumes fluctuate daily and can be up to 5 percent; therefore, less than a 1 percent increase in traffic will likely go unnoticed by drivers. Preliminary 2040 forecast volumes at intersections along Sumner Tapps Highway E/166th Avenue E are provided in Attachment B.

2 East Sumner Neighborhood Plan Update – Traffic Analysis, Transpo Group, June 4, 2019

100 Location 2 – East Valley Highway E Future 2035 weekday PM peak hour traffic operations in the vicinity of location 2 were also reviewed. Traffic operations in the area of the potential East Valley Highway E location are based on results and volumes presented in the Sumner 2015 Transportation Plan under Action Alternative 3 (AA3) without the completion of the 24th Street extension. Future 2035 with the Asphalt Batch Plant volumes were determined by adding project generated PM peak hour trips to the network following the distribution shown in Figure 4. Due to updates in the interpretation of HCM methodologies in the Synchro software future 2035 AA3 operations were rerun utilizing volumes form the 2015 Transportation Plan. Both without and with Asphalt Batch Plant operations were run utilizing the Synchro 10 software utilizing the 2010 HCM methodology (consistent with the Sumner 2015 Transpiration Plan). Table 3 provides a summary of the existing and future 2035 weekday PM peak hour intersection operations. Detailed LOS worksheets are included in Attachment A.

Table 3. Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS Summary –Location 2 2035 Assertive Action 2035 Assertive Action Alternative 3 Without Alternative 3 With Existing1 Asphalt Batch Plant2 Asphalt Batch Plant2 Traffic Intersection Control LOS3 Delay4 LOS Delay LOS Delay E Valley Highway/Terrace View Signal B 12 B 18 B 18 Drive SE E Valley Highway/East Valley Signal A 10 B 12 B 12 Access Road E Valley Highway/Forest Canyon Side-Street D 29 D 35 D 35 Road Stop 1. Analysis from the Sumner 2015 Transportation Plan. 2. Analysis based on volumes developed as part of the Sumner 2015 Transportation Plan, 2035 Assertive Action Alternative 3 3. Level of service based on Highway Capacity Manual method. 4. Average delay in seconds per vehicle.

As shown in Table 3, the intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D or better. Similar to the Location 1, the addition of 18 or less weekday PM peak hour trips at intersections along E Valley Highway E results in a minimal increase in delay. Additionally, intersection delay between without and with the Asphalt Batch Plant are anticipated to remain the same.

Conclusions An asphalt batch plant has a low trip generation. Assuming operations that generate 1,250 tons of asphalt per day, trip generation is forecast to be approximately 180 weekday daily trips with 18 occurring during the weekday peak hour. A review of locating an asphalt batch plant at 16805 64th Street E (Location 1) or 2720 E Valley Highway E (Location 2) shows no new significant traffic operations impacts based on existing and future 2035/2040 traffic analysis. The planned transportation improvements will accommodate the batch plant use.

101 Attachment A – LOS Worksheets

102 HCM 2010 TWSC 2015 Sumner Transportation Element and Plan 41: Sumner-Tapps Highway & 60th Street E Existing 2014 PM Peak Hour

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 19.6

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 0 535 265 495 440 135 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 0 - -- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 2 2 1 1 Mvmt Flow 0 552 273 510 454 139

Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1580 523 593 0 - 0 Stage 1 523 - -- -- Stage 2 1057 - -- -- Critical Hdwy 6.41 6.21 4.12 - -- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.41 - -- -- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.41 - -- -- Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 3.309 2.218 - -- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 121 556 983 - -- Stage 1 597 - -- -- Stage 2 336 - -- -- Platoon blocked, % - -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 87 556 983 - -- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 87 - -- -- Stage 1 597 - -- -- Stage 2 243 - -- --

Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 63.5 3.5 0 HCM LOS F

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 983 - 556 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.278 - 0.992 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.1 - 63.5 - - HCM Lane LOS B-F-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.1 - 14.1 - -

\\srv-dfs-wa\MM_Projects\Projects\14\14132.00 - Sumner Transportation Element and Subarea EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Synchro_SimTraffic Synchro 8 Report 1/15/2015

103 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Sumner ABP 1: 166th Ave E & 64th St E 2019 Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 149 1 507 21 6 2 81 618 22 1 723 15 Future Volume (veh/h) 149 1 507 21 6 2 81 618 22 1 723 15 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 151 1 421 21 6 1 82 624 20 1 730 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 567 378 360 81 17 1 141 1116 36 40 1037 12 Arrive On Green 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 Sat Flow, veh/h 1430 4 1602 130 83 8 274 2577 82 0 1842 35 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 151 0 422 28 0 0 315 0 411 745 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1430 0 1605 220 0 0 1246 0 1687 1878 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 22.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.5 0.0 22.6 23.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.04 0.26 0.05 0.00 0.02 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 567 0 539 99 0 0 190 0 943 1081 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.00 0.78 0.28 0.00 0.00 1.66 0.00 0.44 0.69 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 595 0 580 207 0 0 802 0 1017 1172 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.8 0.0 29.7 29.3 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 6.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 318.5 0.0 1.5 3.6 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 45.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.5 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 0.0 18.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 16.8 0.0 0.4 40.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.1 0.0 82.0 30.8 0.0 0.0 320.7 0.0 1.5 94.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A F C A A F A A F A A Approach Vol, veh/h 573 28 726 745 Approach Delay, s/veh 66.2 30.8 139.9 94.5 Approach LOS E C F F Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 58.8 31.2 58.8 31.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 48.5 32.5 48.5 32.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 25.5 25.6 2.0 24.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.4 0.0 5.6 2.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 101.7 HCM 6th LOS F

Synchro 10 Report

104 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2015 Sumner Transportation Element and Plan 6: E Valley Highway & Terrace View Drive SE Existing 2014 PM Peak Hour

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 45 90 230 45 130 1170 Number 7 14 6 16 5 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1881 1881 1845 1845 1881 1881 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 93 237 46 134 1206 Adj No. of Lanes 1 11111 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 13311 Cap, veh/h 152 136 1089 925 174 1436 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.09 0.59 0.59 0.10 0.76 Sat Flow, veh/h 1792 1599 1845 1568 1792 1881 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 93 237 46 134 1206 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1792 1599 1845 1568 1792 1881 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 3.7 4.0 0.8 4.8 27.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 3.7 4.0 0.8 4.8 27.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 152 136 1089 925 174 1436 V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.68 0.22 0.05 0.77 0.84 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 680 607 1260 1071 408 1713 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.3 29.3 6.3 5.7 29.0 5.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 5.9 0.1 0.0 7.1 3.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln0.83.5 2.0 0.4 2.7 15.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.4 35.2 6.5 5.7 36.1 8.8 LnGrp LOS CDAADA Approach Vol, veh/h 139 283 1340 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.3 6.4 11.6 Approach LOS C A B Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 55.3 10.6 11.4 43.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 60.0 25.0 15.0 45.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 29.9 5.7 6.8 6.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 20.4 0.4 0.2 24.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.4 HCM 2010 LOS B

\\srv-dfs-wa\MM_Projects\Projects\14\14132.00 - Sumner Transportation Element and Subarea EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Synchro_SimTraffic Synchro 8 Report 1/15/2015

105 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2015 Sumner Transportation Element and Plan 7: E Valley Highway & E Valley Access Road Existing 2014 PM Peak Hour

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 25 50 225 50 325 890 Number 7 14 6 16 5 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1810 1810 1863 1900 1881 1881 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 52 234 52 339 927 Adj No. of Lanes 1 12011 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 5 52211 Cap, veh/h 114 101 1213 265 423 1384 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.42 0.42 0.24 0.74 Sat Flow, veh/h 1723 1538 2984 631 1792 1881 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 26 52 142 144 339 927 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1723 1538 1770 1751 1792 1881 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.7 1.6 2.5 2.6 9.0 12.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.7 1.6 2.5 2.6 9.0 12.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.36 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 114 101 743 735 423 1384 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.51 0.19 0.20 0.80 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 856 764 1581 1565 2704 1681 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.3 22.7 9.2 9.2 18.1 3.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 4.0 0.2 0.2 3.6 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln0.41.5 1.3 1.3 4.8 6.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.3 26.7 9.4 9.4 21.7 4.5 LnGrp LOS CCAACA Approach Vol, veh/h 78 286 1266 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.6 9.4 9.1 Approach LOS C A A Timer 1 2345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 42.0 8.3 15.9 26.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 25.0 76.0 45.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.9 3.6 11.0 4.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 14.4 0.2 1.0 16.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.9 HCM 2010 LOS A

\\srv-dfs-wa\MM_Projects\Projects\14\14132.00 - Sumner Transportation Element and Subarea EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Synchro_SimTraffic Synchro 8 Report 1/15/2015

106 HCM 2010 TWSC 2015 Sumner Transportation Element and Plan 8: E Valley Highway & Forest Canyon Road Existing 2014 PM Peak Hour

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.8

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh/h 40 25 215 165 245 770 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - 115 - Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 2 2 1 1 Mvmt Flow 43 27 231 177 263 828

Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1675 320 0 0 409 0 Stage 1 320 - -- -- Stage 2 1355 - -- -- Critical Hdwy 6.46 6.26 - - 4.11 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.46 - -- -- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.46 - -- -- Follow-up Hdwy 3.554 3.354 - - 2.209 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 103 712 - - 1155 - Stage 1 727 - -- -- Stage 2 235 - -- -- Platoon blocked, % -- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 80 712 - - 1155 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 153 - -- -- Stage 1 727 - -- -- Stage 2 181 - -- --

Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 29 0 2.2 HCM LOS D

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 219 1155 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.319 0.228 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 29 9 - HCM Lane LOS --DA- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.3 0.9 -

\\srv-dfs-wa\MM_Projects\Projects\14\14132.00 - Sumner Transportation Element and Subarea EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Synchro_SimTraffic Synchro 8 Report 1/15/2015

107 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary East Sumner Neighborhood Plan Update 3: Sumner-Tapps Highway 2035 Future Alt 3 with 24th_No 62nd PM Peak Hour

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 195 245 275 805 660 90 Future Volume (veh/h) 195 245 275 805 660 90 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 212 266 299 875 717 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 349 311 346 1295 828 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.69 0.44 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 212 266 299 875 717 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.8 11.6 11.7 19.4 24.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.8 11.6 11.7 19.4 24.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 349 311 346 1295 828 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.86 0.86 0.68 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 397 353 422 1719 1172 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.3 27.9 28.0 6.4 18.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 16.8 14.6 0.7 5.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln3.4 1.4 6.1 5.6 10.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.5 44.7 42.6 7.0 23.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS C D D A C Approach Vol, veh/h 478 1174 717 A Approach Delay, s/veh 37.5 16.1 23.1 Approach LOS D BC Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 53.7 18.1 17.9 35.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 66.0 16.0 17.0 45.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.4 13.6 13.7 26.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.6 0.4 0.3 4.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBT, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Synchro 10 Report

108 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Sumner ABP 3: Sumner-Tapps Highway 2035 Future Alt 3 with 24th_No 62nd PM Peak Hour_With-Project

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 195 245 275 806 661 90 Future Volume (veh/h) 195 245 275 806 661 90 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 212 266 299 876 718 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 349 311 346 1296 829 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.69 0.44 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 212 266 299 876 718 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.8 11.7 11.7 19.5 25.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.8 11.7 11.7 19.5 25.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 349 311 346 1296 829 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.86 0.86 0.68 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 396 353 421 1717 1170 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.4 27.9 28.1 6.4 18.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 16.9 14.6 0.7 5.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.4 1.5 6.2 5.6 10.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.5 44.8 42.7 7.1 23.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS C D D A C Approach Vol, veh/h 478 1175 718 A Approach Delay, s/veh 37.6 16.1 23.2 Approach LOS D BC Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 53.8 18.1 18.0 35.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 66.0 16.0 17.0 45.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.5 13.7 13.7 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.6 0.4 0.3 4.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBT, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Synchro 10 Report

109 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Sumner ABP 1: 166th Ave E & 64th St E 2040 Future PM peak Hour Without-Project

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 200 10 590 50 10 10 300 870 40 10 920 25 Future Volume (veh/h) 200 10 590 50 10 10 300 870 40 10 920 25 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 200 10 446 50 10 4 300 870 36 10 920 21 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 367 18 504 65 13 5 430 2039 84 355 1771 40 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.59 0.59 0.01 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 1727 86 1606 1412 282 113 1781 3477 144 1795 3578 82 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 210 0 446 64 0 0 300 445 461 10 461 480 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1814 0 1606 1807 0 0 1781 1777 1844 1795 1791 1868 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.4 0.0 25.5 4.2 0.0 0.0 9.4 16.6 16.6 0.3 21.0 21.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.4 0.0 25.5 4.2 0.0 0.0 9.4 16.6 16.6 0.3 21.0 21.0 Prop In Lane 0.95 1.00 0.78 0.06 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.04 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 385 0 504 83 0 0 430 1042 1082 355 887 925 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.00 0.89 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.43 0.43 0.03 0.52 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 385 0 504 113 0 0 592 1042 1082 428 887 925 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.1 0.0 39.2 56.6 0.0 0.0 15.3 13.7 13.7 14.9 20.6 20.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 0.0 17.1 20.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.0 2.2 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.8 0.0 14.9 2.4 0.0 0.0 3.7 6.6 6.8 0.1 9.0 9.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.7 0.0 56.2 76.6 0.0 0.0 16.8 14.6 14.5 15.0 22.8 22.7 LnGrp LOS D A E E A A B B B B C C Approach Vol, veh/h 656 64 1206 951 Approach Delay, s/veh 52.2 76.6 15.1 22.6 Approach LOS D E B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.1 63.9 10.0 5.1 74.9 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 46.5 7.5 6.0 63.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.4 23.0 6.2 2.3 18.6 27.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 6.2 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.4 HCM 6th LOS C

Synchro 10 Report

110 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Sumner ABP 1: 166th Ave E & 64th St E 2040 Future PM peak Hour With-Project

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 200 10 590 58 10 11 300 870 48 11 920 25 Future Volume (veh/h) 200 10 590 58 10 11 300 870 48 11 920 25 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 200 10 446 58 10 5 300 870 44 11 920 21 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 367 18 505 74 13 6 427 1995 101 348 1745 40 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.58 0.58 0.01 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 1727 86 1606 1434 247 124 1781 3442 174 1795 3578 82 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 210 0 446 73 0 0 300 449 465 11 461 480 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1814 0 1606 1804 0 0 1781 1777 1839 1795 1791 1868 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.4 0.0 25.5 4.8 0.0 0.0 9.6 17.1 17.1 0.4 21.3 21.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.4 0.0 25.5 4.8 0.0 0.0 9.6 17.1 17.1 0.4 21.3 21.3 Prop In Lane 0.95 1.00 0.79 0.07 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.04 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 385 0 505 93 0 0 427 1030 1066 348 874 911 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.00 0.88 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.53 0.53 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 385 0 505 113 0 0 586 1030 1066 419 874 911 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.1 0.0 39.0 56.2 0.0 0.0 15.7 14.2 14.2 15.4 21.2 21.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 0.0 16.6 24.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.9 0.9 0.0 2.3 2.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.8 0.0 14.8 2.8 0.0 0.0 3.8 6.8 7.0 0.2 9.2 9.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.7 0.0 55.6 80.8 0.0 0.0 17.3 15.1 15.1 15.4 23.5 23.4 LnGrp LOS D A E F A A B B B B C C Approach Vol, veh/h 656 73 1214 952 Approach Delay, s/veh 51.8 80.8 15.7 23.3 Approach LOS D F B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.2 63.0 10.7 5.2 74.1 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 46.5 7.5 6.0 63.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.6 23.3 6.8 2.4 19.1 27.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 6.2 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.0 HCM 6th LOS C

Synchro 10 Report

111 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 1 [Without-Project_64TH ST E] 2040 PM PEAK HOUR - Roundabouts Alternative Site Category: (None) Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov Turn Demand Flows Deg. Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Aver. No. Average ID Total HV Satn Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Cycles Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph South: 166TH AVE SE 3 L2 300 2.0 0.457 6.2 LOS A 3.5 90.4 0.55 0.48 0.55 25.7 8 T1 870 2.0 0.457 1.3 LOS A 3.6 94.8 0.53 0.28 0.53 32.1 18 R2 40 2.0 0.457 1.8 LOS A 3.6 94.8 0.52 0.20 0.52 24.3 Approach 1210 2.0 0.457 2.5 LOS A 3.6 94.8 0.53 0.33 0.53 29.9

East: 64TH ST E 1 L2 50 0.0 0.117 9.0 LOS A 0.5 12.1 0.68 0.80 0.68 21.5 6 T1 10 0.0 0.117 3.8 LOS A 0.5 12.1 0.68 0.80 0.68 23.1 16 R2 10 0.0 0.117 4.8 LOS A 0.5 12.1 0.68 0.80 0.68 26.4 Approach 70 0.0 0.117 7.7 LOS A 0.5 12.1 0.68 0.80 0.68 22.7

North: 166TH AVE SE 7 L2 10 1.0 0.385 10.7 LOS B 2.6 65.7 0.60 0.52 0.60 29.2 4 T1 920 1.0 0.385 4.5 LOS A 2.7 70.1 0.59 0.49 0.59 29.0 14 R2 25 1.0 0.385 4.6 LOS A 2.7 70.1 0.58 0.47 0.58 27.6 Approach 955 1.0 0.385 4.6 LOS A 2.7 70.1 0.59 0.49 0.59 28.9

West: 64TH ST E 5 L2 200 0.0 0.484 9.1 LOS A 2.6 66.0 0.72 0.89 0.84 27.4 2 T1 10 0.0 0.484 3.9 LOS A 2.6 66.0 0.72 0.89 0.84 23.1 12 R2 590 0.0 0.484 4.6 LOS A 2.8 69.4 0.72 0.82 0.82 22.5 Approach 800 0.0 0.484 5.7 LOS A 2.8 69.4 0.72 0.84 0.83 24.2

All Vehicles 3035 1.1 0.484 4.1 LOS A 3.6 94.8 0.60 0.52 0.63 27.5

Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Processed: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 3:31:51 PM Project: M:\19\1.19063.00 - 2019-2020 Sumner Engineering On-Call Services\Task 01 Sumner ABP\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\5 v2 - 2040 PM Peak Hr 166th Ave Roundabout 9-19-2019.sip8

112 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 1 [Without-Project_64TH ST E] 2040 PM PEAK HOUR - Roundabouts Alternative Site Category: (None) Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov Turn Demand Flows Deg. Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Aver. No. Average ID Total HV Satn Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Cycles Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph South: 166TH AVE SE 3u U 217 2.0 0.542 9.7 LOS A 4.6 120.3 0.61 0.67 0.61 14.9 3 L2 300 2.0 0.542 7.8 LOS A 4.6 120.3 0.61 0.67 0.61 23.9 8 T1 870 2.0 0.542 5.2 LOS A 4.9 126.4 0.59 0.60 0.59 28.7 18 R2 40 2.0 0.542 3.6 LOS A 4.9 126.4 0.58 0.58 0.58 22.5 Approach 1427 2.0 0.542 6.4 LOS A 4.9 126.4 0.60 0.62 0.60 26.1

East: 64TH ST E 1 L2 50 0.0 0.135 10.7 LOS B 0.6 14.7 0.73 0.87 0.73 20.8 6 T1 10 0.0 0.135 8.9 LOS A 0.6 14.7 0.73 0.87 0.73 26.0 16 R2 10 0.0 0.135 7.4 LOS A 0.6 14.7 0.73 0.87 0.73 25.5 Approach 70 0.0 0.135 10.0 LOS A 0.6 14.7 0.73 0.87 0.73 22.6

North: 166TH AVE SE 7 L2 10 1.0 0.470 10.6 LOS B 3.6 92.6 0.80 0.84 0.84 27.0 4 T1 920 1.0 0.470 7.8 LOS A 3.8 97.9 0.80 0.80 0.81 21.3 14 R2 25 1.0 0.470 5.7 LOS A 3.8 97.9 0.79 0.76 0.79 26.0 Approach 955 1.0 0.470 7.8 LOS A 3.8 97.9 0.80 0.80 0.81 21.5

West: 64TH ST E 5 L2 200 0.0 0.581 12.2 LOS B 3.6 90.0 0.82 1.01 1.05 26.3 2 T1 10 0.0 0.581 10.4 LOS B 3.6 90.0 0.82 1.01 1.05 25.7 12 R2 590 0.0 0.581 7.9 LOS A 3.9 97.9 0.83 1.00 1.04 21.1 Approach 800 0.0 0.581 9.0 LOS A 3.9 97.9 0.83 1.00 1.04 22.9

All Vehicles 3252 1.2 0.581 7.6 LOS A 4.9 126.4 0.71 0.77 0.77 23.6

SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Processed: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 3:47:41 PM Project: M:\19\1.19063.00 - 2019-2020 Sumner Engineering On-Call Services\Task 01 Sumner ABP\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\6 v2- 2040 PM Peak Hr 166th Ave Roundabout & No Lefts at SR 410 WB Ramps Intersection 9-19-2019.sip8

113 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 1 [With-Project_64TH ST E] 2040 PM PEAK HOUR - Roundabouts Alternative Site Category: (None) Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov Turn Demand Flows Deg. Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Aver. No. Average ID Total HV Satn Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Cycles Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph South: 166TH AVE SE 3 L2 300 2.0 0.460 6.2 LOS A 3.5 91.3 0.55 0.48 0.55 25.7 8 T1 870 2.0 0.460 1.3 LOS A 3.7 95.8 0.53 0.29 0.53 32.1 18 R2 48 2.0 0.460 1.8 LOS A 3.7 95.8 0.52 0.21 0.52 24.3 Approach 1218 2.0 0.460 2.5 LOS A 3.7 95.8 0.54 0.33 0.54 29.9

East: 64TH ST E 1 L2 58 0.0 0.132 9.1 LOS A 0.6 13.8 0.68 0.81 0.68 21.5 6 T1 10 0.0 0.132 3.8 LOS A 0.6 13.8 0.68 0.81 0.68 23.0 16 R2 11 0.0 0.132 4.8 LOS A 0.6 13.8 0.68 0.81 0.68 26.3 Approach 79 0.0 0.132 7.8 LOS A 0.6 13.8 0.68 0.81 0.68 22.6

North: 166TH AVE SE 7 L2 11 1.0 0.388 10.7 LOS B 2.6 66.2 0.61 0.52 0.61 29.2 4 T1 920 1.0 0.388 4.6 LOS A 2.8 70.6 0.59 0.49 0.59 29.0 14 R2 25 1.0 0.388 4.6 LOS A 2.8 70.6 0.58 0.47 0.58 27.6 Approach 956 1.0 0.388 4.7 LOS A 2.8 70.6 0.59 0.49 0.59 28.9

West: 64TH ST E 5 L2 200 0.0 0.487 9.2 LOS A 2.7 66.4 0.72 0.89 0.85 27.4 2 T1 10 0.0 0.487 3.9 LOS A 2.7 66.4 0.72 0.89 0.85 23.1 12 R2 590 0.0 0.487 4.6 LOS A 2.8 69.8 0.72 0.82 0.83 22.5 Approach 800 0.0 0.487 5.7 LOS A 2.8 69.8 0.72 0.84 0.83 24.2

All Vehicles 3053 1.1 0.487 4.2 LOS A 3.7 95.8 0.61 0.53 0.64 27.4

SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Processed: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 3:49:33 PM Project: M:\19\1.19063.00 - 2019-2020 Sumner Engineering On-Call Services\Task 01 Sumner ABP\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\5 v2 - 2040 PM Peak Hr 166th Ave Roundabout 9-19-2019.sip8

114 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 1 [With-Project_64TH ST E] 2040 PM PEAK HOUR - Roundabouts Alternative Site Category: (None) Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov Turn Demand Flows Deg. Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Aver. No. Average ID Total HV Satn Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Cycles Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph South: 166TH AVE SE 3u U 217 2.0 0.546 9.8 LOS A 4.7 121.5 0.62 0.67 0.62 14.9 3 L2 300 2.0 0.546 7.8 LOS A 4.7 121.5 0.62 0.67 0.62 23.9 8 T1 870 2.0 0.546 5.3 LOS A 4.9 127.7 0.59 0.60 0.59 28.7 18 R2 48 2.0 0.546 3.6 LOS A 4.9 127.7 0.59 0.58 0.59 22.5 Approach 1435 2.0 0.546 6.4 LOS A 4.9 127.7 0.60 0.62 0.60 26.1

East: 64TH ST E 1 L2 58 0.0 0.153 10.8 LOS B 0.7 16.7 0.74 0.88 0.74 20.8 6 T1 10 0.0 0.153 9.0 LOS A 0.7 16.7 0.74 0.88 0.74 25.9 16 R2 11 0.0 0.153 7.4 LOS A 0.7 16.7 0.74 0.88 0.74 25.5 Approach 79 0.0 0.153 10.1 LOS B 0.7 16.7 0.74 0.88 0.74 22.4

North: 166TH AVE SE 7 L2 11 1.0 0.473 10.7 LOS B 3.7 94.1 0.80 0.85 0.85 27.0 4 T1 920 1.0 0.473 7.9 LOS A 3.9 99.0 0.80 0.80 0.82 21.3 14 R2 25 1.0 0.473 5.7 LOS A 3.9 99.0 0.80 0.76 0.80 26.0 Approach 956 1.0 0.473 7.9 LOS A 3.9 99.0 0.80 0.80 0.82 21.5

West: 64TH ST E 5 L2 200 0.0 0.585 12.3 LOS B 3.6 91.0 0.83 1.02 1.06 26.3 2 T1 10 0.0 0.585 10.6 LOS B 3.6 91.0 0.83 1.02 1.06 25.7 12 R2 590 0.0 0.585 8.0 LOS A 4.0 99.2 0.83 1.00 1.05 21.1 Approach 800 0.0 0.585 9.1 LOS A 4.0 99.2 0.83 1.01 1.05 22.9

All Vehicles 3270 1.2 0.585 7.6 LOS A 4.9 127.7 0.72 0.77 0.78 23.6

SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Processed: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 3:52:02 PM Project: M:\19\1.19063.00 - 2019-2020 Sumner Engineering On-Call Services\Task 01 Sumner ABP\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\6 v2- 2040 PM Peak Hr 166th Ave Roundabout & No Lefts at SR 410 WB Ramps Intersection 9-19-2019.sip8

115 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Sumner ABP 1: E Valley Highway & Terrace View Drive SE 2035 Future AA3 PM Peak Hour Without-Project

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 125 515 135 315 345 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 125 515 135 315 345 Number 7 14 6 16 5 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1881 1881 1845 1845 1881 1881 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 72 129 531 139 325 356 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 3 3 1 1 Cap, veh/h 182 162 695 591 388 1308 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.38 0.38 0.22 0.70 Sat Flow, veh/h 1792 1599 1845 1568 1792 1881 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 72 129 531 139 325 356 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1792 1599 1845 1568 1792 1881 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 3.9 12.4 3.0 8.5 3.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 3.9 12.4 3.0 8.5 3.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 182 162 695 591 388 1308 V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.79 0.76 0.24 0.84 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 182 162 1012 860 473 1720 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.7 21.6 13.4 10.5 18.4 2.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 23.1 2.8 0.3 10.6 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 4.4 6.7 1.3 5.3 1.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.1 44.7 16.2 10.8 29.0 3.0 LnGrp LOS C D B B C A Approach Vol, veh/h 201 670 681 Approach Delay, s/veh 36.6 15.1 15.4 Approach LOS D B B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 39.2 10.0 15.7 23.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 5.0 13.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.5 5.9 10.5 14.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.2 0.0 0.3 4.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.0 HCM 2010 LOS B

Synchro 10 Report

116 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Sumner ABP 2: E Valley Highway & E Valley Access Road 2035 Future AA3 PM Peak Hour Without-Project

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 380 190 465 45 35 375 Future Volume (veh/h) 380 190 465 45 35 375 Number 7 14 6 16 5 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1810 1810 1863 1900 1881 1881 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 396 198 484 47 36 391 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 2 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 5 5 2 2 1 1 Cap, veh/h 513 458 956 93 60 816 Arrive On Green 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.03 0.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 1723 1538 3354 316 1792 1881 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 396 198 262 269 36 391 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1723 1538 1770 1807 1792 1881 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.8 3.9 4.6 4.6 0.7 5.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.8 3.9 4.6 4.6 0.7 5.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 513 458 519 530 60 816 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.43 0.50 0.51 0.60 0.48 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 786 702 1425 1455 192 1919 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.9 10.5 10.9 10.9 17.8 7.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.6 1.1 1.1 9.3 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln4.0 3.6 2.3 2.4 0.5 3.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.5 11.2 12.0 12.0 27.1 8.2 LnGrp LOS B B B B C A Approach Vol, veh/h 594 531 427 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.4 12.0 9.8 Approach LOS B B A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.2 16.1 5.2 15.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 38.0 17.0 4.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 9.8 2.7 6.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.4 1.3 0.0 4.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 11.9 HCM 2010 LOS B

Synchro 10 Report

117 HCM 2010 TWSC Sumner ABP 3: E Valley Highway & Forest Canyon Road 2035 Future AA3 PM Peak Hour Without-Project

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.9 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 70 80 385 145 295 410 Future Vol, veh/h 70 80 385 145 295 410 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - 115 - Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 2 2 1 1 Mvmt Flow 75 86 414 156 317 441

Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1567 492 0 0 570 0 Stage 1 492 - - - - - Stage 2 1075 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.46 6.26 - - 4.11 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.46 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.46 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.554 3.354 - - 2.209 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 120 569 - - 1007 - Stage 1 606 - - - - - Stage 2 322 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 82 569 - - 1007 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 175 - - - - - Stage 1 606 - - - - - Stage 2 221 - - - - -

Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 34.6 0 4.3 HCM LOS D

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 277 1007 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.582 0.315 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 34.6 10.2 - HCM Lane LOS - - D B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 3.4 1.4 -

Synchro 10 Report

118 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Sumner ABP 1: E Valley Highway & Terrace View Drive SE 2035 Future AA3 PM Peak Hour With-Project

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 72 125 515 138 315 345 Future Volume (veh/h) 72 125 515 138 315 345 Number 7 14 6 16 5 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1881 1881 1845 1845 1881 1881 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 74 129 531 142 325 356 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 3 3 1 1 Cap, veh/h 182 162 695 591 388 1308 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.38 0.38 0.22 0.70 Sat Flow, veh/h 1792 1599 1845 1568 1792 1881 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 129 531 142 325 356 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1792 1599 1845 1568 1792 1881 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 3.9 12.4 3.1 8.5 3.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 3.9 12.4 3.1 8.5 3.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 182 162 695 591 388 1308 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.79 0.76 0.24 0.84 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 182 162 1012 860 473 1720 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.7 21.6 13.4 10.5 18.4 2.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 23.2 2.8 0.3 10.6 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 4.4 6.7 1.4 5.3 1.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.2 44.8 16.2 10.8 29.0 3.0 LnGrp LOS C D B B C A Approach Vol, veh/h 203 673 681 Approach Delay, s/veh 36.5 15.1 15.4 Approach LOS D B B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 39.2 10.0 15.7 23.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.0 5.0 13.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.5 5.9 10.5 14.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.2 0.0 0.3 4.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.0 HCM 2010 LOS B

Synchro 10 Report

119 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Sumner ABP 2: E Valley Highway & E Valley Access Road 2035 Future AA3 PM Peak Hour With-Project

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 383 190 468 47 35 377 Future Volume (veh/h) 383 190 468 47 35 377 Number 7 14 6 16 5 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1810 1810 1863 1900 1881 1881 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 399 198 488 49 36 393 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 2 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 5 5 2 2 1 1 Cap, veh/h 515 459 958 96 60 818 Arrive On Green 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.03 0.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 1723 1538 3343 325 1792 1881 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 399 198 265 272 36 393 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1723 1538 1770 1805 1792 1881 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.9 3.9 4.7 4.7 0.7 5.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.9 3.9 4.7 4.7 0.7 5.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 515 459 522 532 60 818 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.43 0.51 0.51 0.60 0.48 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 781 697 1415 1444 191 1905 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.0 10.6 11.0 11.0 17.9 7.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.7 0.6 1.1 1.1 9.4 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln4.2 3.6 2.4 2.5 0.5 3.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.7 11.2 12.1 12.1 27.3 8.2 LnGrp LOS B B B B C A Approach Vol, veh/h 597 537 429 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.6 12.1 9.8 Approach LOS B B A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.3 16.2 5.3 16.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 38.0 17.0 4.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 9.9 2.7 6.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.5 1.3 0.0 4.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.0 HCM 2010 LOS B

Synchro 10 Report

120 HCM 6th TWSC Sumner ABP 3: E Valley Highway & Forest Canyon Road 2035 Future AA3 PM Peak Hour With-Project

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.9 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 70 80 390 145 295 415 Future Vol, veh/h 70 80 390 145 295 415 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - 115 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 2 2 1 1 Mvmt Flow 75 86 419 156 317 446

Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1577 497 0 0 575 0 Stage 1 497 - - - - - Stage 2 1080 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.46 6.26 - - 4.11 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.46 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.46 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.554 3.354 - - 2.209 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 118 565 - - 1003 - Stage 1 603 - - - - - Stage 2 320 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 81 565 - - 1003 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 174 - - - - - Stage 1 603 - - - - - Stage 2 219 - - - - -

Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 34.9 0 4.3 HCM LOS D

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 276 1003 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.584 0.316 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 34.9 10.2 - HCM Lane LOS - - D B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 3.4 1.4 -

Synchro 10 Report

121 Attachment B – Sumner Tapps Hwy E/166th Ave E 2040 Forecast Intersection Volumes

122 123 City of Sumner Asphalt Plant Economic Impacts Study

Andrew Bjorn Senior Associate, BERK Consulting, Inc. February 10, 2020 City of Sumner Council Study Session

124 Overview

In this analysis, we focus specifically on the effects related to the local economy and economic transactions, focusing on housing value / sale prices.

This includes a review of: ▪ Overall potential for local economic impacts ▪ Current conditions and local housing ▪ Impacts on housing prices elsewhere in the region ▪ Overall findings and conclusions

125 Overall Findings

▪ The total effects will depend on the final design of a plant, but any effects are likely related to aesthetics and nuisances from odor given other findings ▪ Assessments of housing prices suggest that proximity to an asphalt plant is not likely a factor in pricing ▪ Proximity of likely sites to commercial areas means that total impacts to residential neighborhoods would be minimized

126 Subject Site

127 Potential Economic Impacts

▪ Potential positive impacts: ❑ New employment / employee retention ❑ Business-to-business spending ❑ Local taxes ▪ Potential negative impacts: ❑ Delays / traffic congestion ❑ Health impacts ❑ Reduced business activity ❑ Property price impacts

▪ The focus of this analysis is on residential property price impacts, given the scale and community interest

128 Overview of Property Price Effects

▪ Price effects related to a perceived “willingness-to-pay” to avoid certain nuisances or effects present in a real estate market ▪ Possible price effects from: ❑ Increased traffic congestion ❑ Health impacts ❑ Soil and water pollution ❑ Nuisances: light, noise, vibration, odor ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Public perception ❑ Other site characteristics

129 Overview of Property Price Effects

▪ No current plans or designs in place for an asphalt plant ▪ Actual effects in the real estate market will be influenced by different conditions: ❑ Design / capacity / site activities ❑ Pollution control measures ❑ Mitigation (e.g., screening, emissions control) ❑ Existing sources of nuisance ❑ Local environmental conditions

130 Current Conditions

131 Housing Values: Local Sites

▪ Initial evaluation based on 2020 assessed value of property by Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer ▪ Plot of single-family housing price per square foot versus distance shows no strong relationship ▪ Some perceptions on housing impacts related to multifamily housing located close to asphalt plant

132 Housing Values: Comparable Sites

▪ Selected 7 sites for analysis: ❑ Auburn (ICON Materials) ❑ Covington (Lakeside Industries) ❑ Issaquah (Lakeside Industries) ❑ Kenmore (Kenmore Asphalt Products) ❑ Monroe (Lakeside Industries) ❑ Sumner (Miles Resources) ❑ Woodinville (Cadman, Inc.) ▪ Hedonic housing price models developed for each site: ❑ Single-family housing ❑ 2-mile radius from plant sites ❑ Sales in 2015–2019

133 Housing Values: Comparable Sites

*** p = 0.01 ** p = 0.05 * P = 0.1

134 Housing Values: Comparable Sites

*** p = 0.01 ** p = 0.05 * P = 0.1

135 Housing Values: Comparable Sites

*** p = 0.01 ** p = 0.05 * P = 0.1

136 Housing Values: Comparable Sites

*** p = 0.01 ** p = 0.05 * P = 0.1

137 Housing Values: Comparable Sites

▪ Results: ❑ 6 out of 7 locations show no significant effect ❑ Auburn: 1.1% increase in housing price per 1,000 feet of distance ❑ Results from Auburn may be influenced by Lakeland Hills development

138 Housing Values: Comparable Sites

139 Overall Findings

▪ The total effects will depend on the final design of a plant, but are likely related to aesthetics and nuisances from odor given other findings ▪ Assessments of housing prices suggest that proximity to an asphalt plant is not likely a factor in pricing ▪ Proximity of the likely site to commercial areas means that total impacts to residential neighborhoods would be minimized

140 EPA Removes Asphalt from List of Hazardous Air Pollutants

141 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2002 / Notices

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [AD–FRL–7142–8] RIN 2060–AI52

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Revision of Source Category List Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of revisions to the list of categories of major and area sources

Dated: January 31, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. 02–3359 Filed 2–11–02; 8:45 am]

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:

SUMMARY: This notice publishes revisions to the list of categories of major and area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions. The source category list, which is required under section 112(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), constitutes a significant part of EPA’s agenda for regulating stationary sources of air toxics emissions. The list was most recently published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2001.

• Why Is EPA Issuing This Notice? This notice announces all list changes that have occurred since we last updated the list on January 30, 2001 (66 FR 8220). The changes and the affected source categories, are: Changes to Source Category Names o Friction Materials Manufacturing Addition of Source Categories o Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units o Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Deletion of Source Categories o Asphalt Concrete Manufacturing o Uranium Hexafluoride o Sewage Sludge Incineration Subsumptions of Source Categories o Cellulose Ethers Production o Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Changes to the Scope of a Source Category o Process Heaters • Asphalt Concrete Manufacturing In today’s notice, we are deleting the source category Asphalt Concrete Manufacturing because available data indicate that there are no major sources. This source category was initially listed in July 1992 because at the time, we believed there were major sources in the category. Emissions data, along with emission factors, were used to estimate HAP emissions from eleven asphalt concrete manufacturing plants employing various production processes and different fuels. Emissions of total HAP at individual plants range from 1.5 tons per year (tpy) to 6.4 tpy. • In addition, emission factors were used to estimate HAP emissions from a plant with a high annual production of 1.2 million tons of asphalt concrete. We estimate total HAP emissions from that plant to be 6.2 tpy. Based on the above information, we have concluded that no asphalt concrete manufacturing facility has the potential to emit HAP approaching major source levels.

142 FIN L

Emissions Comparison: Continuous Drum Asphalt Plant and Selected Source Categories

September 2001

Report Prepared for:

National Asphalt Pavement Association 5100 Forbes Boulevard lanham, MD 20706-4413

Report Prepared by:

~\ Clayton {.., GROUP SERVICES

1200 Trinity Road Raleigh, NC 27607

143 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Background ...... '" ...... 1 Executive Summary ...... 2

2.0 EMISSION ESTIMATES ...... 4 Residential Fireplaces and Woodstoves ...... 5 Bakeries ...... 5 Barbeque Grills ...... 5 Lawn Mowers ...... 6 Auto Refueling ...... 6 Fast-Food Restaurants ...... 6

3.0 COMPARISON OF AIR EMISSION ESTIMATES ...... 7

4.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 9

5.0 REFERENCES ...... 10

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Emission Factor Table Table 2 Hot Mix Asphalt Emission Estimates Table 3 Residential Fireplace Emission Estimates Table 4 Residential Woodstove Emission Estimates Table 5 Bakery Emission Estimates Table 6 Barbeque Emission Estimates Table 7 Lawn Mower Emission Estimates Table 8 Auto Refueling Emission Estimates Table 9 Fast-Food Restaurant Emission Estimates Table 10 Annual Emissions (ton per year) Comparison Between Asphalt Plants and Selected Sources

144 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Background

At the request of the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA), Clayton Group Services, Incorporated (Clayton) conducted a study to compare air emissions from a certain type of hot mix asphalt plant (continuous drum) against air emissions from other easily recognizable, consumer-oriented source categories. In December of 2000, Clayton summarized the results of a previous study for NAP A comparing emissions from a batch asphalt plant against these same source categories. The goal of this effort has been to assist member NAP A companies in understanding the magnitude of emissions from asphalt plants relative to atmospheric releases from sources commonly found within a given community. The NAP A leadership believes that such an understanding will be useful for members engaged in community discussions on local environmental issues.

The benchmark for this evaluation was a typical continuous drum hot mix asphalt plant, which we defined as having an annual production rate of 200,000 tons. As with Clayton's previous study, six other categories of air pollution sources were examined:

• Residential fireplaces, • Residential wood stoves, • Bakeries, • Gasoline filling stations, • Barbeque grills, and • Fast-food restaurants.

Clayton selected these six categories because of their frequent occurrence in most communities and the reasonably good availability of emissions data with which to compare against emissions from asphalt plants.

145 Clayton's methodology for the study involved several steps. First, we calculated emissions from our predetermined "typical" hot mix asphalt plant. We then selected candidate source categories and conducted literature searches to identify emission factors and activity data. Finally, we used the emission factors and activity data for each category to determine annual emissions that were comparable to emissions from a typical asphalt plant. In deriving annual emission estimates for each source category, we attempted to develop a number that was similar to the emission levels from our typical plant. That approach in essence shows the number of sources in each category that would have emissions comparable to emissions from an asphalt plant (for example: thirteen residential fireplaces, twelve gas filling stations, twenty-seven fast-food restaurants).

To acquire data for the analysis, Clayton conducted information searches through the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emission Factors (CHIEF) on the EPA Technology Transfer Network, EPA's home page information sources function, California South Coast Air Quality Management District home page information sources function, and the EPA Research Triangle Park library. Where possible, we tried to use EPA references (such as AP-42 document sections, Locating & Estimating documents, and other laboratory research reports) to enhance the credibility of our results. These references tend to base emission estimates on a larger data set than would a journal article or a State-sponsored emissions study.

Executive Summary

The results of our study show that emissions from a continuous drum hot mix asphalt plant are generally within the range of a small number of emissions sources from several consumer-oriented source categories. The following scenarios represent emission levels that are comparable to annual releases from a typical hot mix asphalt plant:

• VOC emissions from 13 residential fireplaces during the course of one year • VOC emissions from one bakery operating for about two weeks • TOC emissions from 12 gas filling stations during the course of one year

2 146 • Toe emissions from 27 fast-food restaurants during the course of one year • Total PAH emissions from 35 residential woodstoves • Benzene emissions from one gas filling station operating for seven months • Toluene emissions from one gas filling station operating for five months • Xylene emissions from 1.5 gas filling stations operating during the course of one year

3 147 2.0 EMISSION ESTIMATES

Clayton developed emission estimates for each source category by combining emission factors with reasonably available activity data (throughput, consumption, etc.). With one exception, emission factors for the various source categories were obtained from EP A publications and were based on multiple source measurements. The one exception was our selected emission factor for fast food restaurants, which came from a peer-reviewed journal and was based on data from one source test.

Table 1 (located at the end of this report) presents the emission factors by pollutant for each source category Clayton evaluated in this study. The full citations for each report and journal article used by Clayton are listed in Section 5.0 of this report. A general description of the reference for each category is listed below.

• Hot Mix Asphalt Plants - EPA Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards AP-42

Document I • Residential Fireplaces - EPA Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards AP-42 Document 2 • Residential Woodstoves - EPA Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards AP-

42 Document 3

• Bakeries - EPA Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards AP-42 Document 4 • Barbecue Grills - EPA Air & Energy Engineering Research Laboratory Report 5 • Lawn Mowers - EPA Office of Mobile Sources Engine and Vehicle Emissions

Study Report 6 • Gasoline Filling Stations - EPA Locating & Estimating (L&E) Documents for

Benzene, Toluene, and Xylene (3 reports) 7,8,9

• Fast Food Restaurants - Environmental Science & Technology Journal Article to

In general, the activity information for each source category was derived using a combination of data and engineering estimates. The one exception was our gasoline refueling category. For this category, the activity data (i.e., throughput amount) was

4 148 based solely on the average amount of gasoline calculated from EPA studies, as reported in the EPA's L&E documents.

Tables 2 through 9 (located at the end of this report) provide the emission calculations and engineering assumptions for the annual estimates associated with each category. A brief overview on the emissions derivation assumptions for each category is presented below.

Residential Fireplaces & Wood stoves The emission factor for both wood-burning categories was expressed as tons (per year) per tons of wood used. Clayton obtained the average wood use per household from an

EPA-sponsored study. 11 The wood consumption value was expressed as mass quantity of wood per heating degree-days (HDD). We assumed that the average number of HDD throughout the nation is about one-third the value reported in Reference 11 for the Northeast.

Bakeries The emissions factor for bakeries was an equation with several variables, which yields pound of pollutant per ton of baked bread. The numbers Clayton used for each variable in the emissions equation were obtained from an EPA reference listed values for different oven SIzes. Clayton selected variables associated with an oven with medium-sized production. 12

Barbeque Grills The emission factor for barbeque grills was expressed as pound of pollutant per minute of cooking time. Clayton employed technical judgment to determine the average cooking time and number of times per year ofbarbeque usage.

5 149 Lawn Mowers The emission factor for lawn mowers was expressed as pound of pollutant per horsepower-hour. The EPA reference which provided the emission factor was also used to identify average horsepower rating and average hours per year of usage.

Auto Refueling

The emiss~on factor for gas station refueling was expressed as pound of pollutant per gallon of fuel consumed. The average fuel consumption per gas station was obtained from the EPA reference from which the emission factor was obtained.

Fast-Food Restaurants The emission factor for fast-food restaurants was expressed as milligram of pollutant per kilogram of meat cooked. Clayton determined the average annual meat consumption by contacting the Holdings Group for a local fast-food restaurant chain.

6 150 3.0 COMPARISON OF AIR EMISSION ESTIMATES

Clayton developed a companson of air pollution emissions for the vanous source categories based on specific pollutants or groups of pollutants. The list of pollutants for the comparison included:

• Tot~l Organic Compounds (TOC), • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), • Particulate Matter (PM), • Toluene, • Benzene, • Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PARs) • Benzo(b )fluoranthene • Benzo(a)pyrene • Fluoranthene, and • Pyrene.

The phrase "total organic compounds" is a generic term, referring to any compound containing a carbon atom. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are essentially all organic compounds that contribute appreciably to the formation of tropospheric ozone. The term VOC includes most organic compounds except methane, ethane, and a handful of halogenated compounds that have a neglible effect on ozone formation.

Another group of air pollution compounds are classified as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and are regulated by the EPA under Title III of the Clean Air Act. Of the 189,

~ benzene, toluene, xylene, and selected PAH's were used for comparison. These HAPs were selected since three of the sources had published emission factors for these compounds.

Table 10 (located at the end of this report) presents emissions comparisons between a typical hot mix asphalt plant and several source categories. The infonnation is presented

7 151 in such a way to allow the reader to understand the amount of emissions from an asphalt plant relative to other consumer-oriented source categories.

8 152 4.0 CONCLUSIONS

Emissions from hot mix asphalt plants are comparable to many consumer-oriented source categories for a number of pollutants. A useful comparison of air emissions can be based on either the voe or TOe emissions, since all the sources reported either TOe or voc. The voe emissions from a ''typical'' hot mix asphalt plant are approximately the same as those from about a dozen residential fireplaces and an order of magnitude less than those from a bread bakery. Furthermore, the TOe emissions from a typical hot mix asphalt plant are comparable to common residential emission sources from a small neighborhood. For TOe, the equivalent emission levels ranged from 12 gasoline filling stations to 382 residential woodstoves burning wood throughout the heating season.

Particulate emissions from a typical asphalt plant had the largest emissions compared to other sources. However, even the PM emissions were comparable to those from a neighborhood with about 90 fireplaces or 160 woodstoves.

It was difficult to develop a comparison of emissions for P AHs because not all of the same PAH species were reported for each source category. However, it is significant to note that the speciated P AHs emissions from our "typical" hot mix asphalt plant were generally lower than the same P AH species for the other sources investigated.

153 5.0 REFERENCES

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. AP-42. Section 11.1 - Hot Mix Asphalt Plants. (DRAFT)

2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. AP-42. Section 1.9 - Residential Fireplaces

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. AP-42. Section 1.10 - Residential Woodstoves.

4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. AP-42. Section 9.9.6 - Bakeries.

5. Radian Corporation. Estimation of Emissions from Charcoal Lighter Fluid and Review of Alternatives. January 1990. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PB90-186313.

6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Non-road Engine and Vehicle Emission Study Report. November 1991. Office of Mobile Sources. EPA-21A-2001.

7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions of Benzene. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA-4541R-98-011.

8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions of Toluene. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA-4541R-93-048.

9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions of Xylene. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA-4541R-93-047.

10. Rogge, WF, et.al. Sources of Fine Organic Aerosol. 1 - Charbroilers and Meat Cooking Operations. 1991. Environmental Science and Technology, Volume 25, Number 6, 1112-1125.

11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Northeast Cooperative Woodstove Study. November 1987. Office of Research and Development. EPAJ600/7-87- 026a.

12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Alternative Control Technology Document for Bakery Oven Emissions. December 1992. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EP AJ4531R -92-017.

10 154 Table 1. Emission Factor Table Residential Fast·food Hot Mix Asphalt Residential Fire laces Woodstoves Bakerle. Barbeque Grills Lawn Mowers Auto Refueling Restuarant. Emiss Emiss Emiss Emiss Emiss Ref Emlss Ref Emiss Ref Emiss Ref Pollutant Factor Units Ref # Factor Units Ref # Factor Units Ref # Factor Units Ref# Factor Units # Factor Units # Factor Units # Factor Units # HAP voe PAH PM· 0.33 Iblton 1 7.7 Ib/hp.hr 6 PM10 34.6 Ib/ton 2 19.6 Ib/ton 3 CO 0.14 Ib/ton 1 252.6 Ib/ton 2 140.6 Ib/ton 3 CO2 37 Ib/ton 1 3400 Ib/ton 2 NO NOX 0.056 Ib/ton 1 2.6 Ib/ten 2 NO N20 0.3 Ib/ton 2 502 0.011 Ib/ten 1 SOX 0.4 Ib/ten 2 0.4 Ib/ten 3 TOC 0.044 Ib/ten 1 0.0605 Ib/mln 5 437 Ib/hp.hr 6 2,405 mg/kg 10 X TNMOC 12 Ib/ten 3 X CH4 0.012 Ib/ten 1 16 Ib/ten 3 VOC 0.032 Ib/ten 1 229 Ib/ton 2 6.9 Ib/ten 4 X POM 1.60E- Ib/ten 2 X 02 Ethane 1.47 Ib/ton 3 Ethylene 4.49 Ib/ten 3 X Acetylene 1.124 Iblton 3 X Propane 0.356 Ib/ten 3 X PreRene 1.244 Ib/ten 3 X i-Butane 0.026 Ib/ten 3 X n·Butane 0.056 Ib/ten 3 X Butenes 1.192 Ib/ten 3 X Pentenes 0.616 Ib/ten 3 X Aldehydes 2.4 Ib/ten 2 X Acetaldehyde X X Benzene 5.10E·04 Ib/ten 1 1.936 Ib/ten 3 0.105 Ib/l00 7 X X Ogal Ethylbenzene 2.40E-04 Ib/ten 1 X X Fermaldehyde 2.50E-03 Ib/ten 1 X X Furan 0.342 Ib/ten 3 X Furfural 0.466 Ib/ten 3 X Methyl Chlereferm 4.60E-05 Ib/ten 1 0.29 Ib/ton 3 X X 2-Methylfuran 0.656 Ib/ten 3 16.1 mg/kg 10 X 2.5-0imethyl Furan 0.162 Ib/ten 3 X Quinene X X Teluene 1.5E-04 Ib/ten 1 0.73 Ib/ten 3 139.9 mg/l 6 X X Xylene 2.0E-04 Ib/ten 1 5.5 mg/l 9 X X e-Xylene 0.202 Ib/ten 3 X X Benzaldehyde X Butyraldehydellsebu X tyraldehyde Cretenaldehyde X Hexane 9.20E-04 Ib/ten 1 X 2-Methylnapthalene 7.40E-05 Ib/ten 1 X X Acenaphthene 1.40E·06 Ib/ten 1 0.01 Iblten 3 X X Acenaphthylene 6.60E-06 Ib/ten 1 0.032 Ib/ten 3 X X Anthracene 2.20E-07 Ib/ten 1 0.009 Ib/ten 3 X X Benze( a )anthracene 2. 1OE-07 Ib/ten 1 0.29 mg/kg 10 X X Benzo(b )fluoranthene 4.10E-OB Ib/ten 1 0.004 Ib/ten 3 0.21 mg/kq 10 X X Benzo(g.h.I)Flueranthene 0.028 Ib/ten 3 X X BenzO(g.h.t)perytene 1.10E-071 Ib/ten 1 0.02 Ib/ten 3 X X Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4.10E-061 Ib/ten 1 X X Benze( a )Pyrene 9.60E-091 Ib/ten 1 0.006 Ib/ten 3 0.19 mglkg 10 X X Benze( e )Pyrene 0.002 Ib/ten 3 0.19 mg/kg 10 X X ~iphenyl. I 0.022 Ib/ten 3 X X X

155 Table 1. Emission Factor Table Re,ldentlal Fast·food Hot Mix AIPhait Residential Fire lace. Woodstove, Bakerle. Barbeque Grills Lawn Mowers Auto Refueling Restuarant. Emiss Emiss Emlss Emiss Emiss Ref Emlss Ref Emlss Ref Emiss Ref Pollutant Factor Units I Ref # Factor Units Ref # Factor Units Ref # Factor Units Ref # Factor Units # Factor Units # Factor Units # Factor Units # HAP voe PAH Chrysene 1.80E·07 Ib/ton I 1 0.01 Ib/ton 3 X X Dibenzo( a.h )anthracene 9.50E·11 Ib/ton I 1 0.004 Ib/ton 3 X X 7,12·0imethylbenz(a Anthracene 0.004 Ib/ton 3 X X Fluoranthene 6. 1OE·07 Ib/ton 1 0.008 Ib/ton 3 0.35 mg/kg 10 X X Fluorene 3.80E·06 Ib/ton 1 0.014 Ib/ton 3 X X Indendo(1,2,3· 3.00E·10 Ib/ton 1 0.02 Ib/ton 3 X X cd)!lyrene 9·Methylanthracene 0.004 Ib/ton 3 X X 12·Methylbenz(a)b.nthracene 0.002 Ib/ton 3 X X 1· 0.03 Ib/ton 3 X X Methylphenanthrene Naphthalene 9.00E·05 Ib/ton 1 0.144 Ib/ton 3 X X X Perylene 0.002 Iblton 3 X x Phenanthrene 7.60E-06 Ib/ton 1 0.118 Iblton 3 X X Pyrene 5.40E-07 Ib/ton 1 0.008 Ib/ton 3 0.74 mglkg 10 X x ArseniC 5.60E-07 Ib/ton 1 Barium 5.80E·06 Ib/ton 1 Beryllium Cadmium 4.10E-07 Ib/ton 1 2.0e·os Iblton 3 Chromium 5.50E-06 Ib/ton 1 Hexavalent chromium 4.50E-07 Ib/ton 1 Copper 3.10E-06 Ib/ton 1 Lead 1.50E-05 Ib/ton 1 Manganese 7.70E·06 Ib/ton 1 1.4e.Q4 Ib/ton 3 Mercury 2.60E·06 Ib/ton 1 Nickel 6.30E-05 Ib/ton 1 2.0e.QS Iblton 3 Selenium 3.50E-07 Ib/ton 1 Zinc 6.10E-05 Ib/ton 1

Hydrogen sulfide L ___

156 Table 2. Hot Mix Asphalt Emission Estimates

Emission Emissions from a typical plant Pollutant Units Ref # factor (tons/yr) b PM 0.033 Ib/ton 1 3.37 COb 0.14 Iblton 1 14.1 CO2 32 Iblton 1 3200 NOX 0.OS8 Iblton 1 S.8 S02 0.011 Iblton 1 1.1 a TOC 0.044 Iblton 1 4.93 CH4 0.012 Iblton 1 1.2 voe 0.032 Ib/ton 1 3.2 Isooctane 4.00E-OS Ib/ton 1 0.004 Benzene S.10E-04 Iblton 1 0.OS1 Ethylbenzene 2.40E-04 Iblton 1 0.024 Formaldehyde 2.50E-03 Ib/ton 1 0.250 Toluene 1.50E-04 Iblton 1 0.01S Xylene 2.00E-04 Iblton 1 0.020 2-Methylnapthalene 7.40E-OS Ib/ton 1 0.0074 Acenaphthene 1.40E-06 Ib/ton 1 1.40E-04 Acenaphthylene 8.60E-06 Iblton 1 8.60E-04 Anthracene 2.20E-07 Ib/ton 1 2.20E-OS Benzo( a )anthracene 2.10E-07 Iblton 1 2.10E-OS Benzo( a )pyrene 9.80E-07 Ib/ton 1 9.80E-07 Benzo(b )fluoranthene 1.00E-07 Ib/ton 1 1.00E-05 Benzo(Q,h,i)perylene 1.10E-07 Iblton 1 1.10E-OS Benzoik)fluoranthene 4.10E-08 Ib/ton 1 4.10E-06 Chrysene 1.80E-07 Iblton 1 1.80E-OS Fluoranthene 6.10E-07 Ib/ton 1 6.10E-OS Fluorene 3.80E-06 Ib/ton 1 3.80E-04 Indendo( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene 7.00E-09 Iblton 1 7.00E-07 Naphthalene 9.00E-OS Ib/ton 1 9.00E-03 Phenanthrene 7.60E-06 Iblton 1 7.60E-04 Pyrene S.40E-07 Ib/ton 1 5.40E-04 C TOTALPAHs ~$:1ia7E4t~ if:IJtt ',,: <:; , ;i;·h:f}tr 1.87E-02 Arsenic S.60E-07 Iblton 1 5.60E-05 Barium S.80E-06 Iblton 1 5.80E-04 Cadmium 4.10E-07 Iblton 1 4.10E-OS Chromium S.SOE-06 Iblton 1 5.S0E-04 Hexavalent chromium 4.S0E-07 Ib/ton 1 4.50E-OS Copper 3.10E-06 Iblton 1 3.10E-04 Lead 1.50E-OS Ib/ton 1 1.S0E-03 Manganese 7.70E-06 Ib/ton 1 7.70E-04 Mercury 2.60E-06 Ib/ton 1 2.60E-04 Nickel 6.30E-OS Ib/ton 1 6.30E-03 Selenium 3.S0E-07 Ib/ton 1 3.S0E-OS Zinc 6.10E-OS Ib/ton 1 6. 1OE-03

a Emissions from rotary drum dryer and load-out, silo filling, and post load out operations. b Emissions from rotary drum dryer and load-out and silo filling operations.

157 Table 2. Hot Mix Asphalt Emission Estimates

Calculations & Assumptions:

Post load out TOe emissions = 0.0011 Iblton of asphalt loaded 1.10E+02 Ib/yr Post load out TOe emissions = 5.50E-02 tonslyr Load-out and silo filling operation emissions PMtot EF (Ib/ton)= .000181 +0 .00214( _V}e[(O.0251)(T +460)-20.43]

v = asphalt volatility, default value of -0.5 T = Asphalt temp in F, default temp of 325F

PMtot EF (Ib/ton) = 0.000181+0.00214(_(_0.5})e«O.0251)(325+460)-20.43)) PMtot EF (lblton) = 0.000181+0.00214*0.5*0.4836 PMtot EF (Ib/ton) = 0.000698 PMtot emissions from load-out and silo filling operations (tonslyr) = EF * 100,000 tons/yr *1 ton/2000 Ib 0.0349

Toe EF (Ib/ton)= 0.0172(_V}e[(O.0251)(T+460)-2O.43] Toe EF (Ib/ton) = 0.0172*0.5*0.4836 Toe EF (Ib/ton) = 0.004159 Toe emissions from load-out and silo filling operations (tonslyr) = EF * 100,000 tonslyr *1 tonl2000 Ib TOe emissions from load-out and silo filling operations (tons/yr) = 0.208

eo EF (Ib/ton) = 0.00558(_V}e[O.0251)(T+460)-2O.43] eo EF (Ib/ton) = 0.00558*0.5*0.4836 eo EF (Ib/ton) = 0.001349 eo emissions from load-out and silo filling operations (tons/yr) = EF * 100,000 tons/yr *1 ton/2000 Ib eo emissions from load-out and silo filling operations (tons/yr) = 0.0675

Notes:

» Emissions were calculated for a continuous drum mix asphalt plant with 200,000 tons per year production. » Emissions were based on #2 fuel oil used for dryers. » For HAP and PAH emissions it was assumed that the dryer had a fabric filter. » No emissions for hot oil heaters were included. » No lead emissions from a waste oil-fired dryer were included. » No uncontrolled fugitive PM emissions from the following sources were included: crushed stone processing, paved roads, unpaved roads, heavy construction operations and aggregate handling and storage piles. » No emissions from asphalt storage tanks were included.

158 Table 3. Residential Fireplace Emission Estimates

Emission Emissions per household Emissions for 13 Pollutant Units Ref # Factor (ton/yr) households (ton/yr)

PM10 34.6 Ib/ton 2 0.0373 0.0485 CO 252.6 Ib/ton 2 0.2726 3.544 CO2 3400 Ib/ton 2 3.6688 47.70 NOX 2.6 Ib/ton 2 0.0028 0.0365 N20 0.3 Ib/ton 2 0.0003 0.0042 SOX 0.4 Ib/ton 2 0.0004 0.0056 VOC 229 Ib/ton 2 0.2471 3.212 POM 1.60E-02 Ib/ton 2 1.73E-05 0.0002 Aldehydes 2.4 Ib/ton 2 0.0026 0.0337

Calculations & Assumptions

Throughput of an average fireplace: Assume that the same amount of wood is burned in the average woodstove as in the average fireplace annually.

Reference 11: P.G. Burnet, Northeast Cooperative Wood stove Study. Volume 1, EPA/600/7-87-026a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, November 1987. Equation from Reference 11 is as follows:

1. Calculate an average wood use by calculating an average of the mean wood use values for all stove types using scale weighing and woodpile measurements.

Aver wood use per household =(0.64+0.85+0.53+0.91+0.67+0.85+0.46+0.89)/8 Aver wood use per household =0.725 dry kg of wood/ heating degree days (HOD)

2. Convert wood use from dry kg/1000 HOD to tons dry wood use/year (a) Convert from kg to tons dry kgl1000

0.725 HOD X 2.205 Ib/kg X 1ton/2000 Ib 7.99E-04 dry ton woodl heating degree days (HOD)

(b) Convert from 1000 HOD to year Assume that the Vermont and upstate New York region has three times as many HOD as the rest of the country. The reference reported 8,000 to 9,000 HDD/yr. Therefore, assume that there are 2,700 HOD/year.

7.99E-04 dry ton wood X 2,700 HOD

=2.16 dry ton wood/yr

159 Table 4. Residential Woodstove Emission Estimates

Emissions per Emissions for 382 Emiss Pollutant Units Ref # household per year households Factor (tons/yr) (tons/yr)

PM10 19.6 Ib/ton 1 2.11E-02 8.08E+00 CO 140.8 Ib/ton 1 1.52E-01 5.80E+01 SOX 0.4 Ib/ton 1 4.32E-04 1.65E-01 TNMOC 12 Ib/ton 1 1.29E-02 4.95E+00 CH4 16 Ib/ton 1 1.73E-02 6.59E+00 Ethane 1.47 Ib/ton 1 1.59E-03 6.06E-01 Ethylene 4.49 Ib/ton 1 4.B4E-03 1.85E+00 ~ceMene 1.124 Ib/ton 1 1.21E-03 4.63E-01 Propane 0.358 Ib/ton 1 3.86E-04 1.48E-01 Propene 1.244 Ib/ton 1 1.34E-03 5.13E-01 i-Butane 0.028 Ib/ton 1 3.02E-05 1.15E-02 n-Butane 0.056 Ib/ton 1 6.04E-05 2.31E-02 Butenes 1.192 Ib/ton 1 1.29E-03 4.91E-01 Pentenes 0.616 Ib/ton 1 6.65E-04 2.54E-01 Benzene 1.938 Ib/ton 1 2.09E-03 7.99E-01 Furan 0.342 Ib/ton 1 3.69E-04 1.41 E-01 Furfural 0.486 Ib/ton 1 5.24E-04 2.00E-01 MethylEthylKetone 0.29 Ib/ton 1 3.13E-04 1.20E-01 2-Methylfuran 0.656 Ib/ton 1 7.08E-04 2.7E-01 2,5-Dimethyl Furan 0.162 Ib/ton 1 1.75E-04 6.68E-02 Toluene 0.73 Ib/ton 1 7.88E-04 3.01E-01 o-Xylene 0.202 Ib/ton 1 2.18E-04 8.33E-02 ~cenaphthene 0.01 Ib/ton 1 1.08E-05 4.12E-03 ~cenaphthylene 0.032 Ib/ton 1 3.45E-05 1.32E-02 Anthracene 0.009 Ib/ton 1 9.71E-06 3.71E-03 Benzo(b )fIuoranthene 0.004 Ib/ton 1 4.32E-06 1.65E-03 Benzo(g, h, I)Fluoranthene 0.028 Ib/ton 1 3.02E-05 1.15E-02 Benzo(g,h,l)perylene 0.02 Ib/ton 1 2. 16E-05 8.24E-03 Benzo(a)Pyrene 0.006 Ib/ton 1 6.47E-06 2.47E-03 Benzo{eJPyrene 0.002 Ib/ton 1 2.16E-06 8.24E-04 Biphenyl 0.022 Ib/ton 1 2. 37E-05 9.07E-03 Chrysene 0.01 Ib/ton 1 1.08E-05 4.12E-03 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.004 Ib/ton 1 4.32E-06 1.65E-03 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)Anthracene 0.004 Ib/ton 1 4.32E-06 1.65E-03 Fluoranthene 0.008 Ib/ton 1 8.63E-06 3.30E-03 Fluorene 0.014 Ib/ton 1 1.51E-05 5.77E-03 Indendo(1,2,3-cd}pyrene 0.02 Ib/ton 1 2.16E-05 8.24E-03 9-Methylanthracene 0.004 Ib/ton 1 4.32E-06 1.65E-03 12-Methylbenz(a )Anthracene 0.002 Ib/ton 1 2.16E-06 8.24E-04 1-Methylphenanthrene 0.03 Ib/ton 1 3.24E-05 1.24E-02 Naphthalene 0.144 Ib/ton 1 1.55E-04 5.94E-02 Perylene 0.002 Ib/ton 1 2.16E-06 8.24E-04 Phenanthrene 0.118 Ib/ton 1 1.27E-04 4.86E-02 Pyrene 0.008 Ib/ton 1 8.63E-06 3.30E-03

" ." 1-" ...... ,- . ' .. Total PAHs . ... r·"'~""" .''i'' 5.41E-04 2.07E-01 Cadmium 2.0E-05 Ib/ton 1 2.16E-08 8.24E-06 Manganese 1.4E-04 Ib/ton 1 1.51E-07 5.77E-05 Nickel 2.0E-05 Ib/ton 1 2.16E-08 8.24E-06

160 Table 4. 'Residential Woodstove Emission Estimates

Calculations &Assumptions:

Noncatalytic wood stove type assumed for criteria pollutants, PAH's and metals. Conventional stove type assumed for organic pollutants.

Assume the same wood use as was calculated for the fireplace calculations, which is 2.16 dry tons of wood/yr.

161 Table 5. Bakery Emission Estimates

Emissions ton/yr) Pollutant Emission Factor Units Ref # (from equation) VOC 6.9 Ib/ton 4 60

Calculations & Assumptions:

Reference for values in equation and bread production: Alternative Control Technology Document for Bakery Oven Emissions, EPA 453/R-92-017, December 1992.

From the model ovens listed in the ACT, the one with medium-sized production and the largest emission factor was chosen, that is, model oven number 23. In addition to listing values for the variables in the emission factor equation, the ACT listed the emission factor and annual VOC emissions. These numbers were used.

AP-42 Equation:

VOC= 0.95Yi+0.195ti-O.51 S-O.86ts+1.90

Ib VOC per ton baked bread; Y i= initial baker's % of yeast; t i= total yeast action time in hours; S = final (spike) baker's % of yeast; ts = spiking time in hours

The variables for model oven no. 23 are: oven size=6X101\6 BTU/hr, Bread production = 17,308 tons /yr, Y=4.25, S=O, ti=5.15, ts=O, VOC emission factor (Ibs/ton) = 6.9 and VOC Emissions (tons/yr) = 60

162 Table 6. Barbeque Emission Estimates

Emissions per Emissions for Emission Pollutant Units Ref # Household per Neighborhood of 271 Factor year (tons/yr) Households (tons/yr) TOC 0.0605 Ib/min 5 0.01815 4.9

Calculations & Assumptions:

Cooking time (min) on barbeque grill 30 Number of times per year using grill 20

Single household emissions

0.0605 Ib/min ... 30 min/event'" 20 events/yr

=361b/yr

= 0.01815 tons/yr

163 Table 7. Lawn Mower Emission Estimates

Emissions for Emissions per Neighborhood of Pollutant Emission Factor Units Ref # Household per 171 Households year (tons/yr) (tons/yr) TOC 437 glhp-hr 6 0.02888 4.938 PM 7.7 glhp-hr 6 0.00051 0.087 Aldehydes 2 glhp-hr 6 0.00013 0.023

Calculations & Assumptions:

Ave horsepower rating @ 30% load 1.2 Ave hours per year of operation 50

Calculation for TOC

(437 glhp-hr * 1.2 hp* 50 hrslyr) 1(454 glib *2000 Ib/ton)

=0.02888 tonslyr

164 Table 8. Auto Refueling Emission Estimates

Emission Pollutant Units Ref # Annual Emissions (tons/yr) Factor Benzene 0.105 Ib/1000 Qal 7 0.032 Toluene 139.9 mg/l 8 0.350 )(ylene 5.5 mg/l 9 0.014 Total "Voe" 0.393

Calculations & Assumptions:

Throughput: Locating and Estimating document reported that the average filling station's throughput is 50,000 gallons per month.

Benzene emissions =0.1051b/1000gal *50 (1000gaUmo) * 12 mo/yr * 1 tonl2000 Ib

=0.0315 tons/yr

Toluene emissions = 139.9 mg/l "3.7854 I/gal " 50000 gal/mo" 12 mo/yr" 1 g/1000mg" 1 Ib/453.593g * 1 tonl2000lb

=0.350 tons/yr Xylene emissions = 5.5 mgIJ "3.7854IJgal "50000 gal/mo" 12 molyr" 1 g/1000mg " 1 Ib/453.593g " 1 ton/2000lb

=0.0138 tons/yr

165 Table 9. Fast-Food Restaurant Emission Estimates

Emission Pollutant Units Ref # Emissions (tons/yr) Factor TOC 2,405 mglkg 10 0.18 2-Methylfuran 16.1 mglkg 10 1.2E-03 Benzo( a }anthracene 0.29 mglkg 10 2.1E-05 Benzo(b }fluoranthene 0.21 mg/kg 10 1.5E-05 Benzo( a}Pyrene 0.19 mglkg 10 1.4E-05 Benzo( e }Pyrene 0.19 mglkg 10 1.4E-05 Fluoranthene 0.35 mglkg 10 2.6E-05 Pyrene 0.74 mg/kg 10 5.4E-05 Total PAHs 1.4E-04

Calculations & Assumptions:

To calculate throughput:

Called Walker Holdings Group on 9/11100. They own 8 Wendy's restaurants in the NC/southern VA area. Mr. Bert Walker reported that only data for their drive-thru sales were readily available. Mr. Walker reported that the average (for 8 Wendy's) drive thru activity was 2,821 cars per week. He added that the average check per car was $4.12. ~

Assumptions: The same amount of sales occurred on foot (in the restaurant) as by the drive-thru. The average sale consisted of one burger (plus fries and drink and other side dishes) The average burger weighed 1/2 pound. Throughput calculation: Weekly number of sales =2821*2 =5642 Number of "half-pounders" sold =5642 Weekly number of pounds of hamburger cooked =564212 2821 Ib/week Annual mass of hamburger cooked at the average fast-food restaurant =weekly mass * 52 28211b/week * 52 weeks/yr 146692 Ibs of hamburger cooked/yr To calculate annual emissions: TOC Emissions: TOC Emissions (tons/yr) = 2405 mglkg .. 0.4536 kg/lb * 1466921b/yr * 1 g/1000 mg * 1 b/453.593g *1 ton/2000lb TOC Emissions (tons/yr) = 0.1764

•

166 Table 10. Annual Emissions (ton per year) Comparison Between Asphalt Plants and Selected Sources

Total , Quantity Source Category TOC VOC PM Toluene Benzene Xylene PAHs/POMs Typical Asphalt Plant 4.9 3.2 3.4 0.015 0.051 0.019 0.02 13 Residential FireQlaces 3.2 90 Residential Fireplaces 3.4 1,100 Residential Fireplaces 0.019 382 Residential Wood stoves 4.9 160 Residential Wood stoves 3.4 19 Residential Woodstoves 0.015 25 Residential Wood stoves 0.052 35 Residential Woodstoves 0.019 1 Residential Wood stove 0.007 1 Bakery 60 271 Barbecue Grills 4.9 171 Household Lawn Mowers 4.9 6,600 Lawn Mowers 3.4 12 Gasoline Filling Stations 4.7 1 Gasoline Filling Station 0.35 0.032 0.014 1.5 Gasoline Filling Stations 0.02 27 Fast-food Restaurants 4.9 13 Fast-food Restaurants 0.019 ------

167