Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12201994 - H11 H. 11 . • " _ Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa n. —s— i��hdin County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON n S DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT •. ` ti DATE: December 7 , 1994 osT c-Ufq GAti SUBJECT: HEARING ON APPEAL OF THE CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR AND THE APPROVAL OF LAND USE PERMIT #2038-93 FOR THE UNOCAL CORPORATION'S REFORMULATED .GASOLINE PROJECT; (Shoreline Environmental Alliance, Plumbers and Steamfitters Local #342 and Doyle Williams, and Unocal Corporation (Appellants) , Unocal Corporation (Applicant) . SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Certify that the Final EIR is adequate and complete and that the Board has considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project; 2 . Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's certification of the Final EIR and the approval of Land Use Permit # 2038-93 . 3 . Adopt the findings and mitigation monitoring program provided in the Board' s packet. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The County Planning Commission certified the Final EIR and approved the land use permit for the Unocal Reformulated Gasoline project on November 15, 1994 . Appeals of these decisions were filed by Adams and Broadwell representing the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local #342 , by the Golden Gate University Environmental Law and J, stice Clinic representing Shoreline Environmental Alliance, and by nocal Corporation. This report includes a summary of each/ f the appeal letters along with the staff analysis . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATIV RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION F BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ONecem er , IVV4 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x See Addendum for Board. Action VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Catherine Kutsuris 646-2031 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED December 20, 1994 cc: PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COU ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY Page Two Unocal Corporation submitted letters responding to the Adams and Broadwell appeal and the Golden Gate University Environmental Law appeal. These letters have been included in the Board packet. 1. Adams and Broadwell Appeal The Adams & Broadwell appeal is based on their July 25, 1994 comments on the Draft EIR, which the County responded to in the Final EIR, and their letter of October 4 , 1994 which was submitted to the Planning Commission. They base their appeal on three major points: ■ The EIR disclosed a new significant impact and must be recirculated; ■ The project would harm public health and safety; and ■ The Final EIR failed to adequately respond to comments on the Draft EIR. New Significant Impact: Adams & Broadwell asserts that the EIR should be recirculated because the Final EIR includes a new significant impact, that being a significant and unavoidable impact on worker safety. Although the Final EIR added such an impact, the document did so based on information contained in the Draft EIR. The Final EIR did not provide any new information or use any new methodology (Refer to Response AB2-37 in the Response to Comments Document) . Recirculation may be triggered by inclusion of significant new information which did not occur in this case. Thus, there is no basis for recirculating the EIR. Harm To Public Health And Safety: Adams & Broadwell asserts that the EIR did not take into consideration Unocal ' s management practices, alleging a poor environmental compliance track record and poor management practices leading to harmful releases. On the contrary, the EIR discloses Unocal ' s compliance record as it relates to this project. [See the Draft EIR, pages 6-29 to 6-34 (water quality) , 8-19 (air quality) , and 11-4 to 11-5 (accidental releases) ] . If a potential impact would exacerbate a situation of non-compliance, then the EIR treats it as a significant impact. No such impacts are expected for this project. The EIR assumed that human and equipment errors would occur and evaluated the potential impacts accordingly. For impacts due to on-site accidents, the Risk of Upset analysis evaluated "credible worst-case accidents" . For twelve potential accidents, the analysis identified the credible worst types of equipment failure or human errors that might occur, and then evaluated the potential impacts on public health and safety. This analysis found no significant impacts to .public safety due to the proposed project. Similarly, the health risk analysis (Chapter 9 of the DEIR) assumed credible worst case conditions for adversely affecting public health -- maximum exposure; most carcinogenic chemicals; maximum uptake of these chemicals; worst case weather conditions. The conditions attached to the Land Use Permit require protective measures, in addition to the mitigation measures. These measures reduce potential impacts even further than indicated in the Final EIR and include, among other items, fence line monitors surrounding the refinery, protective retrofitting of Hillcrest school, and participation in providing for an emergency response van. Adams & Broadwell ' s assertion that the project will cause an increase in selenium discharges is not supported by evidence in the Page Three record of the project. As explained in the Final EIR, Response AB2-32 . , whether one interprets Unocal ' s current selenium discharge levels as "in compliance" or "out of compliance" has no effect on the conclusions of this EIR. The EIR clearly reports the amount of selenium currently being discharged from the San Francisco Refinery and indicates that this amount exceeds the standard set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Any increased discharge due to the proposed project would be considered a significant impact, whatever Unocal ' s compliance history, since the background selenium levels in the receiving water body are currently considered too high. What matters is whether or not the project would cause an increase in selenium discharge. As explained in the Final EIR, Responses AB2-2 , AB2-5 and AB2-31, the project would not cause an increase in selenium discharges since Unocal will not process more crude and the project does not alter Unocal ' s hydrotreating capacity. Since there is no increase in selenium discharge, the project cannot exacerbate Unocal ' s current selenium discharge problem. Inadequate EIR Responses: Adam and Broadwell's October 4 , 1994 letter relates their disagreement with some of the responses in the Response to Comments Document. Their comments focus primarily on selenium, which is discussed above, and air quality impacts. Adams & Broadwell asserts that the EIR did not consider increased sulfur dioxide emissions at Unocal ' s Los Angeles refinery due to its increased processing of intermediate stocks being transferred to the San Francisco refinery. There is no reason to presume that the Los Angeles Refinery will need to increase its total production of these intermediate stocks. Even if intermediate stock production would increase at the Los Angeles refinery, any increased emissions would either be within that refinery' s emission limits or would trigger a permit amendment and thus a separate CEQA review for that refinery. Concerning emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, the mitigation measures imposed on Unocal ' s San Francisco Refinery fully mitigate the increased annual average emissions of these compounds. Thus, additional controls on older tanks and additional nitrogen oxide retrofits are not needed, whether or not they are feasible. As explained in Response to Comment AB2-19 , such controls would be inappropriate mitigation for peak daily emissions, which occur only twelve times a year. Adams & Broadwell also asserts that the mitigation measure for nitrogen oxide controls was inadequate since it did not specify that Unocal must use ammonia injection to mitigate the impact. This level of detail is not necessary. The mitigation measure specified the general type of action required, the source to be controlled, the deadline for the change, and the performance standard that must be met. The EIR did not fully mitigate the peak daily emissions of the proposed project, which are driven almost entirely by marine traffic. Adams & Broadwell claims that the EIR (1) underestimated emissions due to marine traffic and (2) failed to fully evaluate marine mitigation measures. The EIR for this project and for Unocal ' s Los Angeles reformulated fuels project appear to have conflicting information concerning marine shipments to the San Francisco Refinery. As stated in the Response to Comment AB2-11, an increase of twelve marine vessels per year is the appropriate (and conservative) estimate for this project. Other changes occurring between the two refineries not associated with this reformulated fuels project are not subject to this CEQA review. However, even if a larger number of marine vessels were assumed, the EIR conclusion would not change. The air quality impacts from marine vessels are primarily emissions of sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides due to combustion. Peak daily emissions of these Page Four compounds are already considered significant and unavoidable. No additional feasible mitigation measures would exist, since Unocal- owned ships already use low-sulfur fuel . No technically feasible controls of nitrogen oxides are available for marine vessels -- whether or not they are owned by Unocal. (See Response to Comments, RESPONSE AB2-19 , Page 2-158) . These localized air quality impacts are effectively mitigated by reductions in air emissions associated with combustion of Unocal' s market share of reformulated fuels in the Bay Area. Reductions in emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds more than offset the localized increases in annual average emissions of criteria pollutants due to this proposed project. 2. Shoreline Environmental Alliance, November 22, 1994 The Shoreline Environmental Alliance bases its appeal on four points, two of which address conditions of approval and two which address the EIR. Inadequate Protection of "Chemically Sensitized" Individuals: Shoreline Environmental Alliance asserts that the EIR failed to address the potential health impacts on "chemically sensitized" individuals in the vicinity of the proposed project and therefore the permit should be denied. The EIR' s health risk analysis used the most current and conservative methodology to predict impacts on public health. There is no professionally accepted methodology to predict impacts on especially sensitive populations, since there is nota clear understanding of the dose-response relationship in these individuals. Health risk analysis compensates for this shortcoming by incorporating many health protective assumptions into the model -- maximum exposure, maximum number of exposure pathways, credible worst-case weather conditions, and maximum emissions. In reality, no individual would ever be subject to all of these "maximums" . But the health risk assessment assumes one might, and evaluates the project' s health risk for this unlikely, hypothetically exposed person. Thus the risk, imposed on the maximum exposed individual typically overestimates true health risks, and serves as a proxy for sensitive populations. Health risk analysis does not estimate the expected actual risks, but presents a "not greater than" number. Thus, the EIR was based on the most current health risk assessment methodology, which provides an acceptable analysis of impacts on sensitive populations. Underestimation of Health Risks due to MTBE: Shoreline Environmental Alliance asserts that the EIR underestimated health impacts due to the handling of MTBE, stating that it may be a new significant environmental impact. The Alliance believes that the EIR should be recirculated and the permit be denied. The U. S EPA recently released a draft report evaluating potential health effects of MTBE, an oxygenate. The analysis is still inconclusive and has not progressed to the point of being incorporated into a quantitative methodology for evaluating public health risk. After EPA has issued its final report, the agency will decide whether MTBE should be included within the guidelines for preparing health risk assessments . Health effects from the use of MTBE would not be treated as a separate impact, but would be incorporated into the health risk assessment prepared for a proposed project. Page Five one tentative conclusion of the report is that MTBE's carcinogenicity is probably no worse than that of gasoline, which has a relatively low potency. In addition, the report tentatively concluded that MTBE does not appear to create a significant chronic noncancer effect. Until EPA has completed its analysis and concluded how, if at all, to revise health risk analysis, there is no additional analysis to be performed and thus, no reason to recirculate the EIR. Condition 76 Inadequate: Condition #76 requires Unocal to install fence line monitors on all fences, but it does not specify that the monitors be "remote" or that there be direct and immediate public access to the monitoring data as it is generated. Shoreline Environmental Alliance requests that the permit be denied because this condition lacks_ these two stipulations. The discussions -in the public hearing centered on remote monitors - - monitors designed to detect small concentrations of hazardous constituents. The Commission' s decision recognized that Unocal needed to complete its pilot project prior to designing and implementing a successful monitoring program. Thus Condition 76 requires that Unocal submit its design for the fence line monitoring system to the Planning Commission by August 1, 1995 for approval. If the Commission is not satisfied that the monitors will provide the information and notification intended, the Commission can reject the design. Similarly, the design of the system will also indicate how the monitoring results will be handled. If the Commission is concerned about tampering with or failure to respond appropriately to monitoring results, then it can reject the design until it is satisfied with such safeguards. If the Board believes that the condition be should clarified, Condition # 76 could be amended to amended as follows: The applicant shall design and submit to the Commission for ....... ........... review and approval no later than August 1 , 1995 a remote ....................... fence line monitoring system for all fences. The system, if approved by this Commission, shall be in place and operating by November 1, 1995, and shall fully incorporate the best available technology. When reviewing the .proposed system, t2� Co.mm� s;s�on sha±11 provide for pubi;lc access to tY e ` cI"al generated and shall' consade the ab laty of the system to be. lnked. to the County' s ;emergency notiflctlo prgrat . "Good Faith Negotiations" Unclear Standard: Shoreline Environmental Alliance asserts that the use of "good faith negotiations" does not have a legal standard on which to base a determination and the condition allows discretion by the Zoning Administrator of issue by which he/she has no expertise. The Alliance requests that the phrase be further defined and assigned to someone with expertise in this area of law. The Planning Commission specified that the applicant must submit at a frequency of three months, a written report outlining the progress of negotiations towards a Good Neighbor Agreement. Good faith negotiations, as determined by the Zoning Administrator, is a condition of the permit. Similar to most conditions of approval, the Zoning Administrator would be responsible for determining whether Unocal has complied with this requirement. The Zoning Administrator is a duly designated part of the Planning Agency and Page Six was created pursuant to Government Code Section 63100 . As such, the Zoning Administrator is an appropriate division of the Planning Agency to hear and decide on such items. The decisions of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Board. 3. Unocal Appeal, November 23, 1994 Unocal submitted a letter dated December 5 , 1994 in support of their appeal of the four additional conditions of approval added by the County Planning Commission (Conditions # 76-79) Condition #76: Fenceline Monitoring: Condition #76 requires Unocal to design and submit to the Planning Commission by August 1, 1995 a fence line monitoring system for all fences. The condition further requires that the approved system shall be in place and operating by November 1 , 1995 . Unocal requests that the condition be replaced by their items #1-8 as stated in their December 5 , 1995 appeal letter (refer to page 4 and 5 of the appeal letter) . In short, the changes proposed by Unocal would: ■ Add a six month testing program which must be designed by January 1 , 1995 ; ■ Set other testing program deadlines (e.g. ordering equipment by March 31, 1995 ; installing equipment within sixty days of receipt) ; ■ Remove the requirement to submit the design of the program to the County Planning Commission by August 1, 1995 and to install the approved system by November 1, 1995 ; ■ Specify that the decision on the adequacy of the testing program and the monitoring be between Unocal and the community rather than by the Planning Commission; ■ Allow for Unocal to make the finding that a "full-scale" monitoring program is not feasible. These changes are inconsistent with the Planning Commission's discussion and decision. Condition #76 does not require Unocal to submit the design of the monitoring program until August 1, 1995. This allows at least seven months for design and testing. The Planning Commission, in rendering their decision, understood that some design and testing would be necessary. They also understood that Shell Oil and Chevron have been working on similar monitoring devices. It is prudent to require that the fence line monitoring system be submitted to the Planning Commission for their review and approval. The language proposed by Unocal does not provide assurance that a fence line monitoring system will be installed. Unocal 's appeal letter objected to the requirement that the fence line monitoring system be place on all fences. A monitoring system would not be of much benefit if placed on the fences bordering the Bay on the west or bordering the vacant agricultural lands to the Page Seven east. Similarly, monitoring systems on the fences which border San Pablo Avenue which bisects the facility would not likely provide any better information than could be obtained by monitoring on the fences to the north and south of the facility. Thus, staff recommends that Condition #76 be amended to clarify that the fence line monitoring system is required for the fences on the north and south of the facility. Condition #77 : Cummings Skyway: This condition requires Unocal to commit $4 , 500, 000 or an alternate amount determined by the Board to Supervisors for the construction of the Cummings Skyway extension and to- cooperate with Contra Costa County and other interested parties from the Rodeo and. Crockett area such as Wickland Oil Company. Unocal believes that this condition should be eliminated. Their appeal letter states that there is no nexus between project traffic impacts and the imposition of the $4 . 5 million dollars, and that the requirement is unconstitutional . Unocal also states that the condition is vague in that it does not identify when the funding will be required and leaves open the possibility that the Board of Supervisors will increase the amount. The County Planning Commission included this requirement when they approved the land use permit. The proposed project will added traffic (both construction and operation) on area roads. Conditions #78 and 79 : Good Neighbor Agreement: Conditions 78 and 79 relate to achieving a Good Neighbor Agreement. Condition #78 requires Unocal to submit to the Zoning Administrator a report outlining the progress of negotiations towards a Good Neighbor Agreement. Good faith negotiations are required as a condition of the permit. If the Zoning Administrator finds that good faith negotiations have not been facilitated, the Zoning Administrator must institute revocation proceedings of the land use permit. Condition #79 requires the applicant to submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval the negotiated Good Neighbor Agreement. Unocal's appeal requests that these conditions be modified to permit an appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator to the Board of Supervisors. The County Ordinance Code provides that administrative decision are appealable to the Board of Supervisors . The Zoning Administrator's decision regarding Unocal' s compliance with Condition of Approval # 78 and #79 would be appealable to the Board. Accordingly, no additional clarification is required. ADDENDUM TO H.11 DECEMBER 20, 1994 On December 13, 1994, the Boa rd of Supervisors continued to this date the hearing on the appeal by Plumbers and Steamfitters Local #342 on its own behalf and on behalf of its members and Doyle Williams, Business Manager(appellant) from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning commission on the request by Unocal Corporation (applicant and owner) (County File #2038-93) for approval of a land use permit for the Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project in the Rodeo area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the proposal, commenting on the three appeals, and he commented on the staff's analysis of the appeal points, and the staff recommendations for changes in conditions 24 and 25 to specify that the Zoning Administrator would review and comment on the information submitted with respect to the operational characteristics rather than to approve to keep the County liability safe; second, to amend the conditions to specify that Unocal agrees to submit that information; and on Condition 34, amend that to specify that Unocal's financial contribution toward an emergency response van would be a maximum of $20,000; and he commented on the revised findings and on the staff recommendations that the Board deny the appeal of the Plumbers and Steamfitters local and the Shoreline Environmental Alliance and that the Board deny and approve in part the appeal of Unocal with respect to the conditions modifications as presented today. Mitch Avalon, Public Works Department, commented on a memo dated December 19, 1994, with a correction to the memo, on page 2, condition 54 to read (the shaded portion) Unocal shall contribute to the Public Works Department the equivalent cost of the County's Chip Seal Program for that portion of San Pablo Avenue within 1500 feet of Unocal main gate and he advised the applicant was in agreement. The public hearing was opened and the following persons presented testimony: Alan Randle, General Manager, Unocal, Rodeo; Doyle Williams, 1030 Shary Court, Concord, representing the Contra Costa County Building Trades Council; Tom Adams, 651 Gateway Boulevard#900, South San Francisco, representing #342; Denny Larsen, 501 2nd #305, San Francisco, representing Citizens for a Better Environment; Scott W. Gordon, 1990 N. California Boulevard #608, Walnut Creek, representing the Rodeo-Hercules Fire District; Russell S. Greenlaw, 112 Blueridge Drive, Martinez, representing the Contra Costa Firefighter Local 1230; Gary Miles, 844 Meander Court, Walnut Creek, representing Albay Construction; Ruth Blakeney, 405 Loring Avenue, Crockett; Kasha Kessler, 565 Clark Street, Crockett; Pattie Young, 40 Emerson,No city given; Kent Peterson, 615 First Avenue, Crockett; Howard Adams, 720 Kendall, Crockett; R. Terry Jones, 610 Los Robles Court, Danville; Kathleen Imhoff, 1824 Arlington Avenue, El Cerrito; Janet Pygeorge, 512 Barnes Way, Rodeo; Lynn Cherry, Rodeo; Donald Brown, 1801 Sonoma Boulevard#117, Vallejo; Alan Randle spoke in rebuttal. The public hearing was closed. The Board discussed the matter. Supervisor Smith moved to approve the staff's recommendations with the changes in conditions as shown on the attached transcript of the discussion and motion. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Land Use Permit 2038-93 with conditions as amended is APPROVED; and the staff recommendations are APPROVED; and the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Findings are ADOPTED. Text of motion on H. 11 from December 20, 1995 Supervisor Powers : Thank you very much Allan and unless there' s objection by the Board, the public hearing is closed and the matter is before us . Supervisor Smith: I would like to comment a little bit . It' s actually been an amazing few weeks . I think it' s fair to say that the catacarb release no pun intended placed a huge cloud above this entire process . It was a failure on Unocal' s side that was of monumental proportions and brought the entire community of Rodeo and herc I'm sorry Crockett together with concern knowing that this proposal was before us . I think it' s been very interesting to watch how the communities have come together and have taken the lead in negotiating with the refinery. I think that everybody who' s been involved in that should be handsomely credited. I think Denny and Ruth and Lynn and Alicia and everybody else Kent that' s worked really diligently with the refinery to come up with a good neighbor agreement has really blazoned a new trail . We don' t have any other examples in this County and I agree with Denny that this is probably the premiere example that I'm aware of in the entire state if not the nation. The concerns were addressed, amazing enough the two communities came very close together, were able to come up with some solutions that they thought were appropriate . I've kept very closely in touch with what' s going on and monitored the activity very closely and I think there are a number of concerns that have been addressed. So, I am intending to make a motion here tonight to approve this proposal but I do have to make a few more suggestions . Yeah, right . Supervisor DeSaulnier says what a surprise but there are a few things that I do think need to be clarified. And I would like to make those suggestions as conditions of approval once we get to that point but first let everybody make their own comments. I do want to thank Unocal for stepping up to the place realizing the mistake that they made and recognizing the dire need to negotiate with the community and to come up with this good neighbor agreement . I also want to thank labor for their persistence in making sure that they use their influence to the greatest good of the entire community and I want to thank everybody here for their willingness to sit through all these hearings and stay interested, involved. So, with that I' ll reserve the rest of my time to make some other suggestions about conditions of approval after people have a chance to comment . Supervisor Torlakson: Everybody, great . Supervisor DeSaulnier: Ditto. Supervisor Powers : I'm amazed. I've watched this kind of process occur for a long time and I really had my doubts as to whether it would come together in the time frame that we had available but I must say that there were a lot of people who wanted to bring it all together and get something out of it that was good for everybody and you did it and all of you deserve a great deal of gratitude for your companies your communities and the like so congratulations . It was excellent and I particularly want to say about Jeff. Jeff has been working on some very difficult issues in his district recently and two of those came to conclusion today. Well, assuming this will come to conclusion and I believe it will . Supervisor DeSaulnier: approve the hospital . . . Supervisor Smith: Yeah that was on the consent calendar. Supervisor Powers : I wish we could have. And the Pacific Refining issue . Both of these issues have been tough ones and bringing together that one and this one in the same day, I must say are monumental notches in your political gun to say the least Jeff . You did a really good job in keeping that process going and providing your insight and leadership in bringing them together satisfactorily to everybody conclude involved and that' s really a first I think and I salute you for that . Supervisor Smith: Well, thank you. Now, I' ll try to add up all the conditions . The motion I want to make is to approve staff' s recommendation with the following changes in conditions and it' s sort of long, so bear with me. The condition 34 about the emergency response van I think should be modified to reflect the limitation of the $20, 000 as was suggested. Condition 76 should be modified in order to include language as was presented to us by Unocal which is consistent with the good neighbor agreement regarding fenceline monitoring. I would like to modify condition 71 which has to do with the creation of the CAP to reserve the County' s ability to make appointments to the CAP at least half of the members of the CAP because I do think it is important for the County to have the ability to select membership to participate in this process from the community and I am a little concerned about the CAP being completely self-sustaining. There does be a tendency to get staleness as it is . Conditions 24 and 25 I think should be modified as reflected by Mr. Barry. Condition 68 which is one of the conditions that was negotiated by the Rodeo MAC. I am not willing to change. I think the Rodeo MAC negotiated in good faith for $50, 000 two years in a row and so that should change or should not change . The recommendation of condition 78 with regard to the appeal I think to the Board of Supervisors is a reasonable modification. On Mike Walford' s memo regarding conditions 48, 53, 54, 63 , 73 , I would modify them as they are in our memo here. Condition 77, I am a little concerned about . This is the creation of the local transportation fund with 4 . 5 million dollars . I think it' s the community' s interest . It' s certainly my interest . I think it' s probably Unocal' s interest to make sure that this process doesn' t get stalled and that it doesn' t get hung up in disagreement or delay, so I would suggest the following modifications to the language that' s in the what Mike Walford memo. I would suggest that we add representation from the District II Supervisor and on in the sentence that says the applicant shall work with County staff, Caltrans, the Crockett Rodeo Transportation Committee and the District II Supervisors to establish a community based process to identify and prioritize the projects to be constructed. Then the next sentence would be eliminated. Instead it should then say, the District II Supervisor will present this process to the Board of Supervisors within one month of the beginning of the project and a project implementation plan and expenditure plan within six months of the beginning of the project and then at the end of that paragraph where it says projects to be considered could include but not necessarily limited to the frontage road, Cummings Skyway and Parker Avenue . You should add another sentence to make it clear that it is the Board' s intention and the community' s desire to move the construction of the Cummings Skyway ahead as expeditiously as possible . Then I still have more . I' d like to also add as a condition of approval in the community agreement on page 12 . The language related to volatile organic compounds which is under Section 5 to make it clear that this is a condition of approval . Also, I would like to also add on page 3 as a condition of approval, paragraph 3 , which is in event of a major chemical release Unocal agrees to work with the Contra Costa Health Department to provide early medical intervention for the residents of the community and Unocal agrees to include staff and training and provide clinic operations and to enhance the response, I think that should be included as a condition of approval . Third or last, keep going, I'd also like to include the language about the anhydrous ammonia which is in the community agreement as a condition of approval . And I'm on a roll here. And very importantly, which hasn' t been discussed here, and I think is an important condition after reviewing the entire EIR and realizing that one of the most dangerous releases potentially at this facility is the chlorine release. The EIR is clear that Unocal has minimized their use of chlorine but they still have some there. I think that as a condition of approval, the Board must require that chlorine operations be substituted with a new technology and eliminate all chlorine use in the facility within three years . And with regard to the fire issues, I' d like to explain a little bit and then make another mo or another condition. I think it' s very important in this area, this is one of, . . . Supervisor DeSaulnier: This is the War and Peace of motions . Supervisor Smith: War and Peace of motions . It' s very important in this West County area to address the fire issue in an integrated way and we've really had a lot of willingness on the part of the Rodeo Hercules Fire and the refineries to work together to come up with a solution and really it' s going to take a study to actually decide what' s the best way to do this . Used to be in the old days, that refineries stayed out of fire districts because they had their own fire services and they didn' t want firefighters coming in through their doors, they had trade secrets and specialty concerns that were important but I don' t think when we have refineries around or nearby housing we can anymore afford to presume that a fire or a hazardous situation will stop at the borders of the refinery. Neither can we I think presume necessarily that we know at this point what' s going to be the best, so I would suggest the following language regarding with regard to the fire issues . Unocal will work with the Rodeo Hercules Fire Protection District and Consolidated Fire District to develop a fire services delivery plan which addresses fire service needs in the region particularly involving its refinery. If such a study suggests that fire service could be improved by annexation of Unocal to a fire district, Unocal agrees at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors to annex its facility to either Rodeo Hercules Fire Protection District or Consolidated Fire Protection District or a substitute district . Number two, I think that we have to have a commitment from Unocal to join with the provision of the hazardous materials response unit . As part of the Pacific Refining proposal that we adopted earlier today, they committed to funding such a hazardous materials response vehicle if it' s available to them so I would suggest that as another condition, Unocal agrees to contribute one half of the cost of the hazardous materials response vehicle and the necessary training and equipment to the fire protection district which makes it available to the facility at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors and with those changes, I would move approval . Supervisor Bishop: Second the motion. Supervisor Powers : There' s a motion and a second to approve the land use permit, approve the environmental document and grant and deny in parts the appeals that were submitted along with the changed suggested conditions . Any further discussion on that? Supervisor Bishop: I just want to say in one short sentence . Great work. I think really Unocal is to be commended but also the community itself, Ruth and Denny and Denny even though you' re not the community, you' re the ad hoc community and Kent you've just and Doyle and 342 you've just done a tremendous job. I was going to save that until after I heard what the conditions were and they sounded pretty good and you all deserve a giant pat on the back and a good night' s sleep and I'm going to hit the sack first . Supervisor Smith: One last two cents . As part of the community agreement, there' s envisioned payments of money to the Rodeo and Crockett community and I think that' s a contract between the communities and Unocal and certainly I don' t want the County to interfere with any of that at all, but I would suggest strongly that the parties to the agreement consider making those contributions to the Crockett Trust and to the Rodeo Trust which was just created by the Rodeo Pacific Refinery settlement because I think those trust instruments would be ways of making sure that the entire community has impact on how that money' s spent and the money will not be spent by the County. It' ll stay in the community, so I suggest that . Supervisor Bishop: could we go back and redo Dougherty Valley? Supervisor Smith: No. Supervisor Powers : Okay, no further discussion. Then all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye . Motion passes unanimously and congratulations to all . We still have H. 10 . I'm sorry I thought I'd get away with it geez . This one' s easy. I don' t see anybody . . .motion and a second to approve No. 10 . All -in favor say aye. Passes . Adjourning to the. .yeah Vic . 29th of December, the Ad Hoc Committee. Okay, good deal, good luck. . . PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: December 19, 1994 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: J.Michael Walford,Public Works Director SUBJECT: LUP 2038-93 -Unocal The applicant has appealed one of the Public Works conditions of approval(77)regarding the payment of $4,500,000 toward the Cummings Skyway extension. We have worked with the applicant and come to agreement on several modifications to the conditions of approval as follows: 1. Modify Condition 48: T1eppli-eant Improvements shall M pemwa pavement widening along the frontage of San Pablo Avenue and s#all relocate utility poles at least 5-feet outside of the pavement widening.The edge of pavement shall be 32 feet from the road centerline,except where additional avement.width:is necess{il�yto.acconunodate.a left.turn.lane.forthe-nro1'ect.entrance . fneeded. 1�i. ... .. ..v. .. ............... ..... ..... :••::::•}}}:-}}:::•:::::••;;;tii}:{^}Y{:,i}}}i}ii}}}i::.i':tiGY•}}:;Jini:::::::::.}'.}'.i'::...::::{:::v:•{::.w.}::ry::::n::....y w:...::x::n�.�T}}}i:::::•::.\.}}}::n}i:..:':..... The pavement width may be reduced along those sections of San Pablo Avenue where widening to a 32-foot half-width is infeasible:(e:g,,.at utility.bridge:or.where.conflicts exist with existing fuel faC11111eS . ::::::. ::.::::.::::: lei ...:................................fel?1?......................................................................:::.......... ............ P the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division,for review showing all public road improvements prior to starting work on the improvement plans. The sketch alignment plan shall be to scale and show proposed edge of pavement lines, lane striping details, lighting, cross- sections, and any conflicts which may render the proposed pavement widening infeasible. The sketch plan shall extend a minimum of 150-feet beyond the limits of the proposed work The sketch alignment plan shall also include sufficient information to show that adequate sight distance has been provided. If any existingtt facility which is in conflict with the proposed widening is replaced, the replacement facility shall be installed outside the widened right of way for San Pablo Avenue. 1 2. Delete Condition 53 (combined width 54). 3. Modify Condition 54: To mitigate the projects exacerbation of the need for base failure and pothole repairs due to construction truck traffic,the county shall perform visual inspections of the condition of San Pablo Avenue along the Unocal frontage before and after the construction. Unocal shall be responsible for the cost of any pavement repair along its frontage which is necessary,based,on.the:visual.inspections,:to restore the..pavement.to,its•.pre-construction conditions. :.»>°:: x 'r u� x_... < n zo ulaent'" =t : � .::::... ::. :::..:::::::.: . a:.:::.::. . :. ..::.: .. :::::.... . :.:......:.... :.:.:...:::: al::.r .:...:.:.: ::.�: :.: p�?a�< :;�:� t ..: .... ::::: .::::1 .:::::........:...: ......::::::.::................:. ,r,r,,,•:•.. .. ii:•iiii:•isoh:^:4X_T:i�:•:i::�i}.}i:tiiL:4:'++;:.iii;:•:ii}ii?:;Y.v :•iiiii: IXX r::._:...:::::.>.. ....:.................. e.................. ............. ............................................................ ............ .. 4. Modify Condition 63 Delete the reference to landscaping along San Pablo Avenue in the last sentence of the second paragraph.This landscaping has been incorporated into Condition 48. 5. Modify Condition 73: The..a�plicant shall construct a bike trail and walking:path�aong Unocal property frontage '' 1>':.,as shown on the Prelimin Sketch Plan re€ef��a +� ^^�a�'�� ""Q ''� applicant shall dedicate a portion of the existing security road at the northeast boundary as a dual-lane bike path. Unocal will retain the right of use for security purposes. The physical configuration of the facilities shall be subject to the review of the East Bay Regional Park District and_the review and_:.a pprovalof,tbe County.:Public.Works Department. s Zr i roctinzY it ..< . . .til. O."". ter l $.. �:: ip. .......: �'`::: :�rs> tppcan :�wok wt .be Cotnumly I >: ::::>:> fd 1o :#h : d,:. I.tb :zltl#c ::�df Ilai ' .......... ::::.::. ::::::.:::::::: :::.::::.:::::::::::::...::::::.::::::::::. :............ ..................:...:...:......:.....i ................:.....1 ..... ...............:................................................................. W. imm 6. Replace Condition 77 with the following: Local Transportation Improvement Fund Applicant shall contribute $4.5 million to the County as a Local Transportation Improvement Fund for the construction of local transportation improvements and/or improvements to the local transportation network. Funds shall be deposited in the Public Works Trust Fund 8192. Earned interest shall accrue to the benefit of the fund. The applicant shall work with County staff, Caltrans and the Crockett-Rodeo Transportation Committee to establish a community based process to identify and prioritize projects to be constructed. Staff will document the results of the community based forum in a report to the Board of Supervisors.Projects to be considered include,but are not necessarily limited to the following: 1)frontage improvements along the San.Pablo Avenue frontage of the 2 project;2)the extension of Cummings Skyway and/or 3)improvements to Parker Avenue through Rodeo. Applicant shall work with the County and the Community to support the process outlined above and shall continue to work with the County to identify, and advocate for, additional funding for important local projects. Projects to be funded through this program are subject to the approval of the Board. JMW:RMA:cl g:engsvc:work:lup2038.tl2 cc: H.Bragdon,Director,Community Development D.Barry,Community Development Ni Shiu,Deputy P.W.Director J.Bumvn,Transportation Engineering B.Faraone,Engineering Services C.Kutsuris,Community Development R Walloch,Unocal B.Gray,William Gray Associate 3 Resolution No. 46-1994 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UNOCAL CORPORATION'S "REFORMULATED GASOLINE PROJECT". WHEREAS, on June 9, 1993, UNOCAL CORPORATION (Applicant & Owner), submitted to the Community Development Department, a request for a land use permit for a proposed reformulated gasoline project which would involve the construction and operation of two new refinery components (a hydrogen plant and a steam boiler plant), the modification of three (3) existing units (the Pentane Handling/Benzene Saturation unit), the Gasoline Blender and the Steam/Power Plant), a maximum of 10 new tanks ranging in capacity from 40,000 to 220,000 barrels, additional pipelines, additional drain systems and changes to the utility systems to support project needs for water, electricity, natural gas and hydrogen; and WHEREAS, on December 9, 1993, the County Community Development Department issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP), registered the NOP with the State Clearinghouse, and sent notices by mail to potential Responsible Agencies and interested parties, thereby initiating a 30-day period which terminated on January 10, 1994 and included a public Scoping Session on December 29, 1993; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and issued on June 23, 1994, and a CEQA notice of completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse, enacting a 45-day comment period; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 1994, the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on the Daft EIR, at which time, all who wished to present testimony were heard; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing to oral testimony and confirmed July 18, 1994, as the deadline to receive written testimony on the adequacy and completeness of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 1994, a Response To Comments Document was prepared and distributed to commenting and responsible agencies and to all those who submitted written or oral testimony on the adequacy of the Draft EIR; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator finds: 1 . That the Final Environmental Impact Report for UNOCAL Corporation's proposed Reformulated Gasoline Project, consisting of the June 1994 Draft EIR and the September 1994 Response to Comments Document -1- Resolution No. 46-1994 was prepared, processed and completed in accordance with State and County CEQA Guidelines and with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, on October 4, 1994, after notice was lawfully given, a public hearing was conducted before the County Planning Commission whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, two additional hearings were conducted before the County Planning Commission on October 18, 1994 and November 15, 1994, whereat all persons interested might appear and be heard; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that on November 15, 1994, the County Planning Commission APPROVED Land Use Permit #2038-94 with conditions of approval proposed by staff and with the addition of four new conditions addressing a Good Neighbor Agreement, fenceline monitoring and funding for the Cummings Skyway Extension; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this decision are as follows: 1 . The land use permit is consistent with the County General Plan; 2. The land use permit as conditioned with the findings established in County Ordinance Code Section 26-2.2008; 3. The land use permit would allow the construction of the project whose objective is to meet the 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments which are designed to improve air quality. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and Secretary of this Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California. The instruction by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was given by motion of the Commission on Tuesday, November 15, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Clark, Accornero, Wong, Woo, Straus. NOES: Commissioners - Carmen Gaddis. ABSENT: Commissioners - Marvin J. Terrell . -2- Resolution No. 46-1994 ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. I, Marvin J. Terrell, Chairman of the Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called and held in accordance with the law on Tuesday, November 29, 1994, and that this resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: Commissioners - Gaddis, Straus, Wong, Woo, Clark, Terrell . NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - Emil Accornero. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. xaz� ;?"� Chairman of the Planning Commission, Contra Costa County, State of California. ATTEST: Secr of the a ni g Commission of the Co y of Contra o a, State of California. -3- 14 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA REFORMULATED GASOLINE PROJECT LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION #2038-93 ADOPTED BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TABLE OF CONTENTS Pacte I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . 1 A. Project Location and Description. 1 1. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 . Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 . Discretionary Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 B. Scope of These Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 C. Description of the Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 D. General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1. Reliance on the Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 . Nature of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 . Summaries of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Facts, Alternatives and Other Matters 7 4 . Adoption of Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . 7 5. Specific and General Mitigation . . . . . . . . 8 II. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 A. Land Use and Planning Policies . . . . . . . . . . . 8 B. Geology, Soils and Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 C. Hydrology and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 D. Vegetation and Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 E. Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 F. Worker Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 G. Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 H. Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 I. Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 J. Visual Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 K. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 L. Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 III. DISCUSSION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . 36 A. Reduced Processing Alternative . . . . . . . . . . 37 Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Impacts Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 1. Land Use37 2 . Geology, Soil and Seismicity . . . . . . . . . 37 3 . Hydrology and Water Quality . . . . . . . 37 4 . Vegetation, Wildlife and Fisheries . . . . . . 38 5. Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6. Public Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 7 . Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 8. Risk of Upset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 9. Transportation and Circulation . . . . . . . . 39 10. Public Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 11. Public Utilities and Energy . . . . . . . . . 39 12 . Visual Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 13 . Employment and Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 14 . Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 B. Reduced Importation Option . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Impacts Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 1. Land Use, Plans and Policies . . . . . . . . . 41 i 2 . Geology, Soils and Seismicity . . . . . . . . 41 3 . Hydrology and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . 41 4 . Vegetation, Wildlife and Fisheries . . . . . . 42 5. Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6. Public Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 7. Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 8. Risk of Upset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 9. Transportation and Circulation . . . . . . . . 43 10. Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 11. Public Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 12 . Visual Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 13 . Employment and Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 14 . Cultural Resources . . . . . C. Mitigated Project and Improved Planning Alternative 44 Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Impacts Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 1. Land Use, Plans and Policies . . . . . . . . 45 2 . Geology, Soils and Seismicity . . . . . . . . 45 3 . Hydrology and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . 45 4 . Vegetation, Wildlife and Fisheries . . . . . . 45 5. Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 6. Public Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 7 . Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 8. Risk of Upset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 9. Transportation and Circulation . . . . . . . . 46 10. Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 11. Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 12 . Visual Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 13 . Employment and Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 14 . Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 E. Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 IV. CUMULATIVE AND BENEFICIAL IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . 48 1. Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 2 . Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3 . Risk of Upset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 4 . Public Services and Emergency Response . . . . . . 49 5. Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 6. Visual Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 7 . Beneficial Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 a. Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 b. Cultural Resources . . . . . C. Net Reduction in Criteria Pollutant Emissions in the Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 d. Reduced Cumulative Cancer Risk . . . . . . . . 51 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 V. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 VI. IRREVERSIBLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS . . . . . 54 VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . 55 A. Reduced Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 B. Beneficial Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 C. Beneficial Revenue Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 ii STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA REFORMULATED GASOLINE PROJECT The Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa ("Board") hereby adopts and makes the following Findings ("Findings") relating to its certification of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for Union Oil Company of California's ("Unocal's") Reformulated Gasoline Project ("Project") and the approval of the Land Use Permit for the Project. I. INTRODUCTION A. Pro-iect Location and Description: 1. Location• Unocal's San Francisco Refinery ("Refinery") is located in unincorporated Contra Costa County, near the town of Rodeo. The Refinery is bordered by Wickland Oil Terminal to the north, an undeveloped area to the east, Bayo Vista residential area to the south beyond a 300-600 foot undeveloped area, and San Pablo Bay to the west. Both undeveloped areas are Unocal property and are maintained as buffer areas between the active, or developed, portion of the refinery site and adjacent land uses. Interstate 80 runs north-south through the San Francisco Refinery property, dividing the eastern portion of the Refinery. The property is zoned Heavy Industrial except for portions of the buffer area which are zoned Single Family Residential and Commercial. Land uses to the north-east of the San Francisco Refinery are a combination of industrial and open space; to the east is primarily open space; and to the south and southwest is residential. -1- 2 . Proiect Description: The proposed additions and modifications to the Refinery will be located on approximately 25 acres distributed throughout the 495-acre active portion of the San Francisco Refinery. The proposed Project is located entirely within the developed portion of the Refinery site except for two parking lots, one of which is in Unocal's undeveloped area, and one of which is off-site. The majority of the proposed additions and modifications would be located west of Interstate 80 in the main refinery area. The Project would not involve demolition or relocation of major structures. Excavation and grading would be required to prepare construction sites. These activities would take place within the existing Refinery boundaries. All of the Refinery additions and modifications proposed by the Project are integral parts of Unocal's strategy to produce . the cleaner, reformulated gasoline required by the State Clean Air Act and the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. All new units and supporting ancillary equipment would be directly involved in the processing and production of constituents required for reformulating gasoline. The modifications create a more complex production process required to meet the new reformulated gasoline requirements. This new process involves removing and re-combining chemical elements as well as adding hydrogen. The process involves more stages of processing, more intermediate products, and more inputs than does the current process. The proposed project modifies the existing refinery storage and processing units to accommodate the different requirements. Although the volume of material associated with the new. process may be larger or smaller at the same points compared to the current process, the modifications to the plant will not increase crude oil processing capacity. . In addition, the modifications do not involve an increase in crude oil throughout. -2- 3 . Discretionary Approvals: The County prepared an Initial Study under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") to determine whether an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") or a negative declaration would be prepared for the Project. See Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR" or "Draft EIR") , Ch. 1, App. 1-A. The Initial Study indicated that the Project could have significant adverse environmental impacts. The County directed that an EIR be prepared. A Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and circulated to various responsible agencies, state agencies and federal agencies, to owner/occupants of property within 300 feet of the refinery boundary, and to any person who had filed a written request for notices with the County. DEIR, Ch. 1, App. 1-A. The Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared by the County pursuant to the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation. The DEIR was published for public review and comment on June 3, 1994 . The DEIR was available for review and comment by concerned citizens and public agencies from June 3 , 1994 to July 15, 1994 . After receiving requests for an extension of the comment period, additional comments were accepted through July 25, 1994 . The County Zoning Administrator held public hearings for the purpose of receiving oral testimony regarding the DEIR on July 6, 1994. The County prepared written responses to comments received during the comment period and at the public hearings. The comments and responses were published and made available to the public on September 21, 1994, in a volume entitled "Response to Comments Document for the Unocal Corporation Reformulated Gasoline Project ("Response to Comments") . A hearing was held before the County Zoning Administrator on October 3 , 1994 . After reviewing the DEIR, the Response to Comments, and all available testimony and evidence in the record, the Zoning Administrator recommended that the Planning Commission certify the DEIR, together with the comments to the DEIR and the County's responses -3- thereto, specifically including, but not limited to, all changes made to the DEIR in the Response to Comments, (collectively referred to as the Project EIR, " "Final EIR" or, the "FEIR") , as having been completed in accordance with CEQA. Three public hearings were held before the Planning Commission on October 4 , October 18 and November 15, 1994 . At the conclusion of the November 15, 1994 hearing the Planning Commission certified the FEIR as having been completed in accordance with CEQA and approved the Land Use Permit. For the purposes of these findings, the EIR consists of the Initial Study, the Notice of Preparation, the DEIR, all appendices to the DEIR, Response to Comments, the FEIR and all documents incorporated by reference into these documents. B. Scope of These Findings: CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require that a project's significant environmental impacts identified in an EIR be addressed by one of three findings, as set forth in 15091 (a) . To insure that all significant project impacts are identified, and necessary findings made, these Findings list the significant impacts and mitigation measures identified in the Project EIR and set forth the corresponding required findings. (Some beneficial impacts are also discussed in these Findings. ) C. Description of the Record: For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the record before this Board includes, without limitation, the following: 1. All applications for approvals and development entitlements relating to the Project submitted by Unocal to the County or other public entities; 2 . The Final EIR for the Project, as defined above; -4- 3 . All County staff reports on the Project and the EIR; 4 . All studies conducted for the Project and the EIR, and contained or referenced in the EIR, including appendices; 5. All public reports and documents prepared for the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors or the County; 6. All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at, or obtained as a result of, public hearings relating to the Project and the EIR before the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission, or the Board of Supervisors; 7. For documentary and informational purposes, the Contra Costa County General Plan and amendments thereto, including appendices; 8 . The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project prepared by the Community Development Department; 9. All matters of common knowledge to this Board, including, but not limited to (i) the County's zoning And other ordinances; (ii) the County's fiscal status; (iii) the County's policies and regulations; (iv) reports, projections and correspondence related to development within and surrounding the County; (v) state laws, regulations and publications, including all reports and guidelines published by the California Office of Housing and Community Development and by the California Office of Planning and Research; -5- 10. All written materials submitted to the County by Unocal in support of the Application for Land Use Permit or the EIR for the Project; and 11. All Permit conditions included in Land Use Permit No. 2038-93 . D. General Considerations: 1. Reliance on the Record: Each and all of the findings and determinations contained herein are based upon competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the Board in all respects. 2 . Nature of Findings: Any finding made by this Board shall be deemed made regardless of whether it appears in this document or is specifically labeled as a "Finding. " All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by this Board, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. This Board intends that these Findings be considered as an integrated whole and, whether or not any part of these Findings fails to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these Findings, that any finding required or permitted to be made by this Board, with respect to any particular subject matter of the Project, shall be deemed made as it appears in any portion of these Findings. -6- 3 . Summaries of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Facts, Alternatives and .Other Matters: All summaries of information relating to the Project are based on the referenced environmental documents and/or evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. Moreover, the summaries set forth below, including, without limitation, summaries of impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives, are only summaries. Cross- references to the EIR and other documents in the record have been made and the reader should refer directly to those documents for more precise information regarding the facts on which the summary is based. All mitigation measures in this document are numbered to correspond with the impacts and mitigation measures set forth in the FEIR. 4 . Adoption of Mitigation Measures: These findings are based upon the numerous mitigation measures set forth in the Project EIR or already included as part of the Project plans. This Board hereby adopts and incorporates into the Project those mitigation measures set forth in the Project EIR that have not already been incorporated into the Project as modified in these findings. All of the mitigation measures now or previously incorporated into the Project as modified by these findings shall be implemented in connection with the Project in accordance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation measures set forth in these findings, except when specifically designated as being measures proposed by the Project proponents as part of the Project, are in addition to those measures proposed by the Project and can reasonably be expected to reduce adverse impacts of the Project. -7- 5. Specific and General Mitigation: The Project EIR generally identifies, for each potentially significant impact of the Project, one or more corresponding mitigation measures described below that may lessen or avoid identified impacts other than those for which they are specifically proposed. In light of the above, the Board finds that each mitigation measure adopted herein, or already incorporated into the Project, may avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant impacts identified in the project EIR, other than the impact which such mitigation measure corresponds to in the Project EIR, or below. II. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION A. Land Use and Planning Policies: 1. Impact: The proposed location for Tank 109 could conflict with a County General Plan Policy requiring visual buffers between new industrial developments and residential areas (EIR p. 4-25) . Mitigation: The Conditions of Approval for the land use permit require, consistent with adoption of Project Alternative 3 (analyzed below) , the relocation of Tank 109 from the southern boundary of the Refinery to an interior site (adjacent to Tank 112) . (EIR p. 21-23) . Facts: A new tank initially proposed for the southeastern corner of the San Francisco Refinery would be visible from Hillcrest Elementary School and to some residents living just south of the Refinery. Alternative 3 discusses relocation of Tank 109 to an interior site. By relocating Tank f09 to an interior site at the Refinery, this potential impact has been eliminated. Mitigation measures previously identified are no longer appropriate. -8- Findings: The Board finds that the relocation of Tank 109 adjacent to Tank 112 constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the Project's impact to a level of insignificance. B. Geology, Soils and Seismicity: 1. Impact: The potential failure of cut and fill slopes and unconsolidated deposits could cause significant damage to all components of the Reformulated Gasoline Project. (EIR p. 5-30) . Mitigation: Measure 5-1. A California-certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer shall analyze the slope stability for specific sites and shall formulate design criteria and recommendations for cut and fill slopes. This mitigation measure shall include the specific measures 5-1 (a) , 5- 1 (b) , and 5-1 (c) listed below and shall be completed for each major component of the Project and for each component where the amount of cut and/or fill (earthwork) will require a grading permit. 5-1 (a) . Cuts shall not be steeper in slope than two horizontal to one vertical unless a site-specific soils engineering or an engineering geology report is completed certifying that a steeper slope will be stable. Compacted fill slopes shall not be steeper than two horizontal to one vertical. 5-1 (b) . During the design phase, the following information shall be provided to the County for each major component of the project, or where the amounts of cut and/or fill (earthwork) will require a grading permit. 1. Detailed plans showing elevations, locations, extent and slope of all proposed grading. All proposed Project facilities, retaining walls, -9- drainage systems, and erosion protection devices should also be shown; 2 . Amount of material to be excavated and/or filled shall be specified; and 3 . A site-specific soils and slope stability report prepared by a Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer regarding the suitability of the earth materials for construction of stable embankments and excavation slopes. The report should contain recommendations that conform with California Uniform Building Code and Contra Costa County requirements regarding construction procedures to obtain required slope stability. 5-1 (c) . During grading operations, a registered geotechnical engineer shall be on the site to: 1. Observe that the recommended slope stability designs are correctly implemented; 2 . Identify areas of potential instability and observe slope repairs, as necessary; and 3 . Perform compaction testing of fill materials. (EIR p. 5-31, 5-32) . Facts: Based on previous geotechnical reports completed at different locations throughout the Refinery, existing artificial fill of undetermined thickness may underlay all components of the Project. The creation of cuts in artificial fill and unconsolidated natural deposits, and the placement of fill as berms and terraces, has the potential to create unstable slope conditions if the cut and fill slopes are not properly designed or constructed. -10- ° Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures 5-1(a) through (c) . The Board finds that the adoption of these mitigation measures constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the Project's impact to a level of insignificance. 2 . Impact: Grading and excavation in areas underlain by or adjacent to existing cut-slopes in potentially unstable bedrock materials, for the construction of the proposed hydrogen plant, steam boiler, C5 removal/benzene saturation, Tank 109, Tank 111, Tank 113 , Tank 243 , Tank 271, Tank 310, Tank 311,- and Tank 1007, could create unstable slope conditions. (EIR p. 5-33) . Mitigation: Measure 5-2 . Mitigation Measure 5-1 shall be followed during grading and excavation for the construction of the proposed hydrogen plant, steam boiler, C5 removal/benzene saturation, Tank 109, Tank 111, Tank 113 , Tank 243 , Tank 271, Tank 310, Tank 311, and Tank 1007, in areas underlain by and/or adjacent to existing cut slopes in the Neroly and Cierbo formations. (EIR p. 5-34) . Facts: Problems of slope stability are most prevalent in the hillside areas at places where soil creep or landsliding has occurred previously. Problems of slope stability within bedrock are usually associated with grading involving cuts within weak bedrock materials. Existing cuts within the Neroly and Cierbo formations appear stable. In addition, many of the proposed project element sites underlain by the Neroly and Cierbo formations have been previously developed by major earthwork construction (cutting and filling) . However, all of the project elements underlain by the Neroly and Cierbo formations require moderate amounts of grading and excavation within bedrock. In particular, Tank 1007 will require approximately 22 , 000 cubic yards of cutting and approximately 22 , 000 yards of filling. Tanks 243 , 310, 311 and 1007 are located adjacent to existing bedrock cut-slopes. -11- Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure 5-2 . The Board finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the Projectfs impact to a level of insignificance. 3 . Impact: Demolition, grading, excavation, and construction activities at all of the Project facilities have the potential to increase soil erosion, with subsequent deposition in drainages, streams, or wetlands. (EIR p. 5-34) . Mitigation: Measure 5-3 . Unocal shall prepare an erosion and sedimentation control plan and file it with its grading permit application with the County Building Inspection Department. This plan shall prevent erosion during both Project construction and Project operation. (EIR p. 5-35) . Facts: Soils washed from open cut-slopes, fill-slopes and soil stockpiles may cause sediment to be deposited in low- lying areas such as drainages, streams, wetlands, or within the local storm drainage system. The re-deposition of sediment within water bodies may result in increased water turbidity and decreased water-carrying capacity of drainages, streams and the local storm drainage system. If construction were to take place during periods of high precipitation, the hazard of erosion and sedimentation would substantially increase. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure 5-3 . The Board finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to- the Project that will reduce the Projects impact to a level of insignificance. 4 . Impact: During the lifetime of the Project, the Refinery is likely to be subjected to at least one moderate to severe earthquake that will cause strong ground shaking and may result in the loss of life, structural collapse or failure, and the release of hazardous materials. (EIR p. 5-36) -12- Mitigation: Measure 5-5. Unocal shall implement the following six mitigation measures [5-5 (a) -(f) ] outlined below: 5-5 (a) . Site-specific seismic design criteria and recommendations based on site-specific geologic information and pertinent State and County regulations, shall be completed by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and implemented during construction. 5-5 (b) . Modern seismic design shall be used in construction for resistance to lateral forces. Modern seismic design and building in accordance with the California Uniform Building Code and Contra Costa County Code requirements would significantly reduce the potential for structural failure, major structural damage and loss of life, and reduce the primary effects of ground shaking on structures and infrastructures to a generally acceptable level. 5-5 (c) . Appropriate grading and design, 'in accordance with the California Uniform Building Code and Contra Costa County Code requirements, should be used to reduce the secondary effects of ground shaking on structures and infrastructures. Subsurface site conditions should be investigated for all Project facilities to identify poor foundation materials that may be susceptible to the effects of liquefaction, lateral spreading, lurch cracking, and differential settlement. Poor foundation materials should be removed prior to construction and replaced with engineered fill or be subjected to ground improvement techniques. In addition, deep pile foundations should be driven through the poor foundation soils and into more competent materials. -13- 5-5 (d) . Fill used during the construction of the project should be properly designed with keyways and subsurface drainage and adequately compacted at a minimum 90 % relative compaction. 5-5 (e) . All structural foundations, above-ground utilities, and underground utilities should be designed to accommodate estimated settlement without failure, especially across transitions between fills and cuts. 5-5 (f) . Final design of the proposed improvements should be made in conjunction with a design-level geotechnical investigation submitted to Contra Costa County for review prior to issuing any grading or construction permits. (EIR p. 5-37 , 5-38) . Facts: The potential for strong ground shaking of earthquakes in the region is a significant seismic hazard to the Refinery. All elements of the Project should be designed and constructed, based on site-specific geologic information and recommendations from a Certified Engineering Geologist or a Geotechnical Engineer, to minimize the potential for loss of life, structural collapse or failure, and the release of hazardous materials during strong seismic ground shaking. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure 5-5 (a) through (f) . The Board finds that the adoption of these mitigation measures constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the Project's impact to a level of insignificance. 5. Impact: Natural settlement of unconsolidated deposits, such as artificial fill and Bay Mud, may occur over time due to increased foundation loads from overlying structures. Natural settlement of unconsolidated deposits could damage all facilities in the Project. (EIR p. 5-38) . -14- Mitigation: Measure 5-6. Unocal shall implement mitigation measures 5-5 (c) through (f) for the design and construction of all Project facilities. (EIR p. 5-39) . Facts: Natural settlement typically occurs in unconsolidated deposits, such as artificial fill and Bay Mud, over time as a result of increased foundation loads from overlying structures. Natural settlement may damage foundations and structures and should be evaluated prior to construction. Subsurface site conditions should be investigated for all Project facilities to identify poor foundation materials that may be susceptible to natural settlement. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure 5-6. The Board finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the Project's impact to a level of insignificance. C. Hydrology and Water Quality: 1. Impact: Stormwater runoff from or over areas of contaminated soils could introduce hazardous materials into the waste water treatment system. Dewatering of contaminated. groundwater could also introduce hazardous materials into the system. (EIR- p. 6-44) . Mitigation: Measure 6-3 . Prior to grading and/or excavation at any site, Unocal shall prepare and file with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, a Soils Management Plan that describes how non-hazardous, contaminated soil and groundwater will be handled during the construction phase of the project. In addition, Unocal shall sample and analyze soil during the excavation and grading process. Should materials not typical of Unocal's sols analysis be encountered, Unocal shall halt excavation and dewatering operations and conduct an investigation per California EPA requirements. Soils shall be managed per the approved Soils -15- Management Plan unless the soils analysis indicates that the material is a hazardous waste, in which case it will be managed according to the California EPA requirements. (EIR p. 6-45) . Facts: Several project structures are located in an area where groundwater has been identified to be extensively contaminated with hydrocarbons. It is expected that hydrocarbons would be encountered in wastewater from dewatering. This wastewater would be released into the treatment plant to remove and recycle the hydrocarbons back into the refinery process. The existing wastewater treatment system has the capacity and capability to handle these constituents should the need arise. Although extensive studies have been performed in the past on hazardous waste sites at the Refinery, there is the potential for contaminated areas to exist that .have not been previously identified or characterized. Release of unsampled stormwater or groundwater with unknown constituents into the wastewater treatment system could overwhelm the wastewater treatment plant's removal ability or could cause an exceedance of NPDES permit limitations. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure 6-3 . The Board finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the Project's impact to a level of insignificance. 2 . Impact: Due to the incremental increase in tanker calls, the likelihood of accidental spills during, transfer activities and the severity of such spills are considered to be significant. (EIR p. 6-48) . Mitigation: Measure 6-8. In the event of a spill, Unocal shall immediately implement its existing oil Spill Contingency/Response Plan as described in the Facility Response Plan for the Refinery. (EIR p. 6-48, 6-49) . -16- Facts: Currently, the total number of one-way tanker trips is 222 or an average 111 tankers per year that call on the marine terminal. The Project would increase the number of tanker calls at the marine terminal by up to 12 ships. At the existing spill rate during transfer operations, the incremental increase of 12 ship calls would result in one spill every 12 years. Because the risk of upset section assumes the lifetime of the Project to be 30 years, it is expected that such an accident would occur at least once during the lifetime of the Project. The 12 additional tankers that would call at the marine terminal would carry unfinished gasoline stocks. If any gasoline blend is spilled into marine waters during transfer activities, this release would constitute a non-permitted discharge and would violate the Federal Clean Water Act. A discharge of any kind of petroleum product into surface waters would also. exceed the Water Quality Objectives established by the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan for San Francisco Bay. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure 6-8. The Board finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the Project's impact to a level of insignificance. D. Vegetation and Wildlife 1. Impact: Construction of Project components could result in surface runoff into nearby freshwater emergent wetlands. (EIR p. 7-23) . Mitigation: Measure 7-1. During construction of the Project, Unocal shall comply with the erosion and sedimentation control measures outlined in Mitigation Measure 5-3 . (EIR p. 7- 23) . Facts: All proposed construction sites included in the operating portion of the Refinery are hydrologically separated from low wetlands and creeks by berms or other barriers that -17- prevent the runoff of surface water. In the unlikely event of the failure of the berms or other barriers and/or the onsite wastewater treatment system during the construction phase of any of the proposed projects, the direct discharge of waters contaminated with silt or other contaminants could constitute a significant impact to the ecosystems along the unnamed creeks tributary to the Canada del Cierbo and others east of Interstate 80 through the permanent loss of key vegetative elements, disruption of predatory-prey relationships, etc. If sensitive plant and/or animal species occur in these natural drainages or in the adjacent riparian corridor or grassland, they could potentially be adversely affected. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure 7-1. The Board finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the Project's impact to a level of insignificance. 2 . Impact: Occasional releases of alkylate or isopentane/reformate blend stocks might occur during the offloading and transfer processes that could reach waters of San Pablo Bay and Carquinez Straight as well as nearby wetlands. Aquatic and marsh biota could be affected. (EIR p. 7-30) . Mitigation: 7-4 . Unocal will implement the Oil Spill Contingency/Response Plan as described in the Facility Response Plan for the Refinery. (EIR p. 7-31) . Facts: During the transfer and offloading of unfinished gasoline at the terminal, accidents might occur that would result in blendstocks reaching waters of the Carquinez Straight, San Francisco Bay and wetlands of the region. If shoreline areas and tidal marshes are exposed to gasoline, sensitive habitats or biota would be potentially affected. There is a high probability that an accident would occur during the Project's 30-year operational life. If spilled blendstocks were to be quickly transported to a nearby sensitive wetland habitat, -18- environmental concentrations could be sufficiently high to result in damage to sensitive organisms. However, the rapid degradation of toxic components would limit direct impacts to a few hours' duration. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure 7-4. The Board finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the Project's impact to 'a level of insignificance. E. Air Quality: 1. Impact: Construction of the proposed Project would result in increased emissions of certain criteria pollutants (NO, and PM,o) . (EIR 8-27) . Mitigation: Measure 8-1. Unocal shall adopt Mitigation Measure 8-1. 8-1 (a) . Unocal shall include in all contracts with companies involved in the construction of the Project that daily average vehicle daily ridership should equal not less than 1. 15 (Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD") goal for Contra Costa County, 1994) . The average daily ridership shall be calculated based upon the definition for construction in BAAQMD regulations. To the extent that the average vehicle ridership cannot be achieved, construction companies may propose to the County measurable pollution-reducing alternatives for implementation. In the event that local commute rules also apply, the most stringent rules shall be followed. 8-1 (b) . During construction, Unocal shall implement mitigation measures for reduction of fugitive dust emissions as detailed in Table 8-11 of the FEIR, unless -19- determined to be infeasible based on safety considerations. 8-1(c) . During construction, Unocal shall implement each of the mitigation measures detailed in Table 8-12 of the FEIR for reduction of construction equipment combustion emissions. (EIR p. 8-27, 8-28) . Facts: Daily emissions from construction vehicular traffic, materials handling and stationary construction equipment all contribute to the impact referred to in this section. At the level of activity associated with this Project, such emissions of NO, and PM,o would exceed the significance thresholds. The mitigation measures address the three main Project components contributing to significant construction emissions impacts, namely vehicular emissions, fugitive dust emissions, and combustion by-product emissions. This impact is significant and unavoidable. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures 8-1(a) through (c) . The Board finds that these mitigation measures, while reducing these impacts, will not reduce regional air quality construction impacts to an insignificant level. Thus, the Project's impacts on emissions of criteria pollutants, with the exception of volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") SOX and CO, is a short-term significant and unavoidable impact. 2. Impact: Carbon monoxide concentrations at four intersections affected by the Project construction vehicle traffic would exceed the state ambient air quality standards during the construction period. (EIR p. 8-28) . Mitigation: Measure 8-2 . Implementation of Mitigation Measures 8-1 (a) would reduce the impact of construction vehicles on CO concentrations at local intersections through increased -20- vehicle ridership. However, because the predicted background concentrations of CO without the construction traffic would exceed the State eight-hour standard at three of the four Project intersections, any increase in vehicle traffic would be considered a significant impact. (EIR p. 8-31) . Facts: Carbon monoxide concentrations were estimated at six intersections in the Project area that would be most affected by Project construction. Carbon monoxide concentrations generated by construction vehicle traffic, when added to ambient ' concentrations, would result in exceedances of the State eight- hour standard of 9 . 0 ppm at four intersections. Three of these four intersections are estimated to exceed the standard without the construction traffic. However, the addition of the construction traffic would result in an increase in concentrations and would worsen violations of the standard. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure 8-2 . The Board finds that this Mitigation Measure will not reduce construction-related carbon monoxide concentrations at Project intersections to an insignificant level. Thus, the Project's impact on such levels, even after mitigation, are significant and unavoidable. 3 . Impact: Operation of the proposed Project would result in an increase of VOC emissions to the atmosphere, thereby contributing to the formation of ozone in the region. (EIR p. 8- 37) . Mitigation: Measure 8-3 . Unocal shall conduct source tests of the hydrogen plant heater and each of the steam turbines to confirm the annual average Precursor Organic Compound ("POC") emission increases and shall report the results to the County within 180 days of achieving normal operation. These increases, plus the projected increases of all other project related sources of VOCs, shall be considered the actual increase in VOCs due to the proposed Project. If this actual increase equals or exceeds -21- 27 tons per year, then Unocal will take one of the following actions by January 1, 1996 to reduce VOCs in the Bay Area Air Basin by an amount that exceeds the difference between the actual emissions and 27 tons per year. 1. Provide contemporaneous offsets, either onsite or offsite. 2 . Accept a valve leak definition to 100 parts per million of VOCs for all valves at the Refinery subject to BAAQMD Regulation 8-18, effective January 1, 1996. Unocal may elect to implement either of the above actions without a source test, using the projected increase in VOCs as finally approved by the BAAQMD to be the actual increase. In this case, a source test will not be required. Within 180 days of achieving normal operation, Unocal must present analyses to the County's Community Development Department indicating (1) the amount of reduction needed, (2) which option has been chosen, and (3) how the chosen option will reduce the increase in VOC emissions to below 27 tons per year. (EIR, Response to Comments, 3-15, 3-16) . Facts: The average annual and maximum daily Project emissions of VOCs would exceed the standards of significance. Operation emissions of VOCs are estimated at 28 . 1 tons per year (annual average) and at 374 pounds per day (peak daily emissions) . The majority of Project VOC emissions are from stationary sources. Unocal will be required, in connection with permitting for the Project by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD") to utilize best available control technology for all project components and to comply with the BAAQMD offset rules and regulations. These offsets will be obtained through both onsite and offsite banked emissions. However, the banked emissions may not be contemporaneous with the Project and may not provide an actual reduction of VOC emissions in the Project area as measured against the baseline. Because VOC emissions are primarily of concern due to regional ozone formation, -22- contemporaneous reductions with the air basin would mitigate the physical environmental impacts of increased VOCs due to the proposed Project. The proposed mitigation measure would allow Unocal to reduce VOCs, either at its refinery, or elsewhere in the basin. This reduction would mitigate the annual average emissions to less than significant. However, the maximum daily emissions would still be significant, due to the increase in marine traffic of up to 12 marine vessels per year. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure 8-3 . The Board finds that this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the increase in annual average VOC emissions to a level of insignificance. However, this mitigation measure would not sufficiently reduce the significant impact due to maximum daily emissions of VOCs. The Board finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce the maximum daily emissions of VOCs from the operation of the project. Thus, maximum daily emissions of VOCs remain a significant and unavoidable impact. 4 . Impact: Operation of the Project would result in an increase of NOX emissions to the atmosphere during visits to the Project site by marine vessels. (EIR 8-38) . Mitigation: Measure 8-4 . Unocal shall implement duct burner option for increased steam production. (EIR, Response to Comments, p. 3-12) . Facts: NO,, emissions for the proposed Project were estimated after application of best available control technology. Annual average and peak daily emissions of NO, due to project operation would equal or exceed the standard of significance. Annual average emissions of NO, were estimated at 26. 7 tons per year which almost equals the standard of significance of 27 tons per year. Peak daily emissions of NOX were estimated at 1, 344 pounds per day, which exceeds the standard of significance of 150 -23- pounds per day. Implementation of the duct burner option as mitigation will reduce annual emissions by 6. 8 tons per year, thereby reducing this impact to less than significant levels. Maximum daily emissions of NO, exceed the threshold of significance, with marine traffic representing more than 92 percent of NO, emissions contributing to this impact. In order to satisfy permitting requirements, Unocal will include emission offsets as part of the Project. These offsets will be obtained through offsite bank emissions. However, because the offsite banked emissions are not emission reductions in the Project's area, they would not provide an actual reduction of NO, emissions in the Project area as measured against baseline. Best available control technology will be applied to all new and modified sources of NO, emissions, which by definition means that no other feasible mitigation measures can be applied to these sources. Unocal shall implement the duct burner option for increased steam production to reduce Project emissions of NO,. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure 8-4 . The Board finds that this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the increase in annual average NOx emissions to a level of insignificance. However, this mitigation measure would not sufficiently reduce the significant impact due to maximum daily emissions of NO,. The Board finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce the maximum daily emissions of NO., from the project. Thus, the maximum daily emissions of NOX remain a significant and unavoidable impact. 5. Impact: Operation of the proposed Project would result in an increase in sulfur dioxide ("S02") emissions to the atmosphere. (EIR p. 8-40) . Mitigation: No feasible mitigation measures have been identified. (EIR p. 8-41) . -24- Facts: Project emissions of sulfur dioxide would result from both marine traffic and stationary source operation, with marine traffic making the greatest emissions contribution on both an average annual and maximum daily basis. Emissions of sulfur dioxide during Project operation are estimated at 23 . 8 tons per year (annual average) and 1, 475 pounds per day (peak daily emissions) . Average annual emissions of SO2 would not exceed the standard of significance. Maximum daily emissions of sulfur dioxide would exceed the standard of significance. Marine traffic represents 96% of the SO2 emissions contributing to this impact. Maximum daily emissions of SO2, therefore, would remain significant even after application of best available control technology. In order to satisfy permitting requirements, the applicant would also include emission offsets as part of the Project. These offsets would be obtained through both onsite and offsite banked emissions. However, because the onsite banked emissions are not contemporaneous with the Project and the offsite banked emissions are not emission reductions in the Project's area, they would not provide an actual reduction of SO2 emissions in the Project area as measured against the baseline. Thus, for purposes of CEQA, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Findings: The Board finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce the maximum daily SO2 emissions from operation of the Project. The Board finds that these emissions are a significant and unavoidable impact of the Project. 6. Impact: Operation of the Project would result in a significant increase of PM,o emissions to the atmosphere. (EIR p. 8-42) . Mitigation: No feasible mitigation measures have been identified. (EIR p. 8-42) . -25- Facts: Operation of new project marine and stationary sources would result in increases in PMIO emissions through combustion. PMIO emissions from all Project sources are estimated at 6. 8 tons per year (annual average) , or 165 pounds per day (peak daily emissions) . Average annual emissions would not exceed the standard of significance. Maximum daily emissions of PMIO would exceed the standard of significance. Marine traffic represents 81% of the PMIO emissions contributing to this impact. Best available control technology will be applied to all stationary sources of PMIO emissions, which by definition means that no other feasible measures can be applied to these sources. Findings: The Board finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce the maximum daily emissions of PMIO from operation of the Project. The Board finds that these emissions are a significant and unavoidable impact of the Project. F. Worker Health and Safety: 1. Impact: The proposed Project creates no significant new hazards not already present at the Refinery and thereby creates a less than significant impact on overall worker safety. However, due to the uncertainty surrounding potential hazards to individual employees, the impacts on worker safety are considered significant and unavoidable. (EIR, Response to Comments, p. 3- 27) . Mitigation: Measure 9-4 . Unocal shall comply with the applicable requirements of Cal-OSHA to protect employee health and safety. (EIR, Response to Comments, 3-27 , 3-28) . Facts: The DEIR demonstrates that all the hazards presented by the proposed Project currently exist at the Refinery. This Project does not create significant new hazards beyond those already present onsite. Programs and procedures (as -26- described in the DEIR) to protect employees should be continued. However, the Refinery and this proposed Project create an inherently risky work environment that requires special training and protective measures for all employees exposed to the refining operation. It would be speculative to assess the safety of individual workers at this point in the project, prior to permitting, detailed design, and revised operating procedures incorporating new and modified units. The OSHA requirements are designed to ensure the health and safety of workers. These requirements are implemented in California through Cal-OSHA. : After the Project is operating, OSHA regulations come into play. OSHA issues no permits. OSHA publishes detailed workplace safety standards, reporting requirements, and record keeping requirements. It enforces these requirements by inspecting operating facilities and evaluating trends in employee safety. Risks to employees from the same type of equipment can vary widely from workplace to workplace, depending on the detailed operating conditions and safety practices in each workplace. Thus, OSHA protects employees by regulating the detailed operating working conditions and by ensuring that workplaces meet certain minimum requirements. Although the DEIR has been revised to include an impact and a mitigation measure focused on employee safety, the Board does not believe that an EIR should analyze and propose mitigation for impact to onsite workers. The EIR cannot either engage in speculative analyses or require the applicant to generate detailed information that can only be provided at a much later stage in the Project's development. While the Board concludes that the overall, Refinery-wide impacts on worker safety are less that significant, we cannot at this time resolve the uncertainties surrounding potential impacts on individual employees. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure 9-4 . The Board finds that due to the uncertainties about risks to -27- individual employees, it cannot demonstrate that this mitigation measure will reduce that risk to a less than significant level. Thus, the impact is significant and unavoidable after mitigation. G. Noise• 1. Impact: Construction of Tank 109 would generate short- term noise. The noise levels at the Hillcrest Elementary School and adjoining residences would exceed existing ambient noise levels and a significance criteria established for construction noise during the daytime and the nighttime. (EIR p. 10-14) . Mitigation: Unocal will relocate Tank 109 to an interior site at the Refinery consistent with adoption of Alternative 3 . Therefore, construction noise will no longer have a significant impact on sensitive receptors. (EIR p. 21-23) . Facts: The site for Tank 109 was originally located approximately 1300 feet from the Hillcrest Elementary School and nearest residences. By relocating Tank 109 to an interior site at the Refinery, construction noise will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Findings: The Board finds that relocation of Tank 109 constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the Project's impact to a level of insignificance. 2 . Impact: Operating machinery in the proposed Project would substantially alter the area noise environment if the Project-related noise would exceed the noise of similar equipment at the Refinery. (EIR p. 10-15) . Mitigation: Measure 10-4 . Unocal shall adopt a noise performance standard for the Project and a noise monitoring plan to ensure no noticeable increase in noise at residences due to Project operation through implementation of Mitigation Measures 10-4 (a) through (c) contained in the DEIR, as summarized below. -28- 10-4 (a) . Meet specified performance standards (DEIR, Appendix 10B) for new or modified equipment and piping. 10-4 (b) . Submit a description of noise control treatments and detailed noise level calculations to the County for review and approval prior to issuance of - building permits. 10-4 (c) . Prepare a noise monitoring plan and submit it to the County for review and approval prior to Project operation. Specify noise monitoring procedures and standards to certify that the Project would meet the noise performance standards. (EIR p. 10-16, 10-17) . Facts: The Project would require new and modified processing units to produce cleaner burning gasoline. The major noise sources include the proposed hydrogen plant, the pentane handling/benzene saturation modifications (new and modified equipment) and new and modified steam production capabilities. Unocal is unable to provide noise level data for these Project components this far in advance of procuring such components. If the proposed onsite equipment noise associated with the Project exceeds noise of similar existing site equipment, then community noise levels could increase substantially above existing levels. Equipment noise performance standards, therefore, are contained in Mitigation Measure 10-4 . Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure 10-4 (a) through (c) . The Board finds that the adoption of these mitigation measures constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the Project's impact to a level of insignificance. -29- H. Transportation: 1. Impact: Three of the four proposed construction parking lots are located with access directly onto San Pablo Avenue, with no turning lanes or breaks in double-yellow striped median lines. Left turns into and out of these parking lots could be hazardous, particularly in the case of the Main Lot, with access via Gate 28, due topoor sight distance for outbound left turners. (EIR, p. 12-48) . Mitigation: Measure 12-4 . Unocal shall coordinate with the traffic division of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department to arrange for temporary modifications to San Pablo Avenue and parking lot entrances, which shall remain in place for the duration of Project construction. These measures are detailed in Mitigation Measure 12-4 (a) in the DEIR. Unocal shall conduct a quarterly monitoring program to assess the safety of traffic operations at Lot 2/3 , the West Lot, and the Main Lot (via Gate 28) , as detailed in Mitigation Measure 12-4 (b) in the DEIR. If the Traffic Engineer concludes that the monitoring assessment shows a need for greater control of the parking lot entrances, Unocal shall implement manual traffic controls at the lot's entrances: (EIR p. 12-49, 12-50) . Facts: Construction workers would be using three parking lots accessed by San Pablo Avenue. Given the four-lane configuration of San Pablo Avenue and the prevailing speeds (45 m.p.h. posted) , left turns into and out of these lots are potentially hazardous. Those making left turns from the street would need to stop in the inside lane until a gap in the opposing traffic lanes becomes available. Those making left turns from the lots would need to monitor three lanes of traffic in order to select a safe gap in the oncoming traffic. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure 12-4 (a) and (b) . The Board finds that the adoption of these mitigation -30- measures constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the Project's impact to a level of insignificance. 2 . Impact: Construction truck traffic will contribute to the deterioration of the pavement on Parker Avenue and San Pablo Avenue north of Parker Avenue. (EIR, p. 12-53) . Mitigation: Measure 12-5. As mitigation for the increase in construction truck traffic generated by this Project and the consequent additional pavement deterioration, Unocal shall contribute the equivalent cost of the County's chip seal overlay project for the portion of San .Pablo Avenue within 1500 feet on either side of the Unocal Main Gate. Unocal shall be responsible for the cost of any pavement repair along its frontage that is necessary, based on visual inspections by the County, to restore the pavement to its pre-construction conditions. (EIR, p. 12-53) . Facts: Construction truck traffic would accelerate the deterioration of the roadway pavement in the area. Pavement deterioration is related to truck traffic only. The cumulative effect of the Project construction truck traffic is to contribute 1% of the cumulative 10-year truck volumes on Parker Avenue and San Pablo Avenue north of Parker. The contribution of 1% or more damage is considered significant because the pavement on San Pablo Avenue and Parker Avenue is already in fair to poor condition. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure 12-5. The Board finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the Project's impact to a level of insignificance. -31- I. Public Services: 1. Impact: Construction truck traffic will contribute to the deterioration of the pavement on Parker Avenue and San Pablo Avenue north of Parker Avenue. (EIR, p. 13-20) . Mitigation: As mitigation for the increase in construction truck traffic generated by this Project, and the consequent additional pavement deterioration, Unocal shall contribute the equivalent cost of the County's chip seal overlay project for the portion of San Pablo Avenue within 1500 feet on either side of the Unocal Main Gate. Unocal shall be responsible for the cost of any pavement repair along its frontage that is necessary, based on visual inspections by the County, to restore the pavement to its pre-construction conditions. (EIR, p. 13-20, 12-53) . Facts: Construction truck traffic would accelerate the deterioration of the roadway pavement in the area. Pavement deterioration is related to truck traffic only. The cumulative effect of the Project construction truck traffic is to contribute 1% of the cumulative 10-year truck volumes on Parker Avenue and San Pablo Avenue north of Parker. The contribution of 1% or more damage is considered significant because the pavement on San Pablo Avenue and Parker Avenue is already in fair to poor condition. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure 12-5. The Board finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the Project's impact to a level of insignificance. J. Visual Quality: 1. Impact: Construction of the proposed Project could involve area flood lighting. (EIR, P. 15-12) . -32- Mitigation: Measure 15-1. Flood or area lighting needed for construction activities shall be placed and directed so as not to disturb adjacent residential uses and passing motorists. (EIR, p. 15-12) . Facts: Construction of the Project would take place during the day and possibly at night. Lighting would be necessary to continue construction during the night hours, which would most likely involve area flood lighting near construction sites and laydown areas. Night lighting of this kind would be considered a temporary disturbance to adjacent residential areas. Night lighting could also disturb motorists along Interstate 80. This would be considered a short term significant impact. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure 15-1. The Board finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the Project's impact to a level of insignificance. 2 . Impact: Proposed tanks would be visible from Hillcrest Elementary School in Rodeo. (EIR, p. 15-16) . Mitigation: Measure 15-4 . The Conditions of Approval for the land use permit require the relocation of Tank 109 to an interior site at the Refinery (adjacent to Tank 112) , thereby eliminating the significant visual quality impact identified in the DEIR. (EIR, p. 21-23) . Facts: Students, teachers and weekend users of the Hillcrest Elementary School and nearby residences will no longer notice a visual change from the addition of Tank 109, which has been relocated to a site in the interior of the Refinery. Findings: The Board finds that the relocation of Tank 109 constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the Project's impact to a level of insignificance. -33- K. Cultural Resources: 1. Impact: Cultural resources of either prehistoric, protohistoric or historic age or character may be encountered within the Project site during subsurface construction or other earthmoving activities. (EIR, p. 17-7) . Mitigation: Measure 17-1. If any significant cultural materials, such as artifacts, human burials, or the like are encountered during construction activities, Unocal shall cease such operations within 10 feet of the find, shall notify the Community Development Department within 24 hours, and shall contact and retain a qualified archeologist to evaluate the find and make further recommendations. Appropriate mitigation of the cultural resources may include monitoring of further construction and/or systematic excavation of the resources. Any artifacts or samples collected as part of the initial discovery, monitoring or mitigation phases, shall be properly conserved, catalogued, analyzed, evaluated and curated along with associated documentation in a professional manner consistent with current archaeological standards. (EIR, p. 17-8) . Facts: Archival study has suggested the possible presence of both prehistoric and historic period cultural resources of significance or potential significance at one or more locations within the confines of the Refinery. Careful onsite surface reconnaissance failed to identify any prehistoric or protohistoric surface cultural resources of demonstrated or potential significance within the boundaries of the subject area. Virtually the entire Project area has been subjected to extensive development and topographic alteration throughout the 20th century. Nevertheless, extensive earthmoving activities have occurred on this property, which make identification of the original ground surface difficult and at places, impossible. It is therefore possible that unanticipated cultural resources may be encountered during construction. -34- Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure 17-1. The Board finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the 9 Project's impact to a level of insignificance. L. Cumulative Impacts: 1. Impact: A significant, although temporary, cumulative increase in criteria pollutant emissions in the region could be expected during construction of future projects. (EIR, p. 19- 21) . Mitigation: No further mitigation is possible. (EIR, p. 19-21) . Facts: Construction of the Project, even after mitigation, would result in temporary significant criteria pollutant emissions. Other future projects being constructed in the same time frame would contribute to a temporary, cumulative impact on air quality in the region. Findings: The Board finds that the cumulative impact on air quality from construction of this Project and other projects in the area will have a temporary and unavoidable significant impact due to emissions of criteria pollutants. 2 . Impact: The proposed project would add to the cumulative change in the visual environment associated with anticipated industrial development in the area. (EIR, p. 19-27) . Mitigation: Measure 19-10. Individual Clean Fuels projects would be reviewed for conformance with visual-related policies of the general plan and for the creation of demonstrable, negative adverse visual impacts. Mitigation measures to reduce these impacts would be applied on a project- by-project basis. The County should develop standards that address modifications to existing industrial developments. Such -35- standards would address acceptable vegetative screening, identification of areas that would be sensitive to a change in the visual environment that are adjacent to industrial uses, and/or duration of views related to significance levels. (EIR, p. 19-27, 19-28) . Facts: Cumulative visual quality impacts are assessed in relation to other industrial projects in the area. Industrial projects similar to Unocal's project include projects at Shell, TOSCO, Exxon and others as contained in Figure 19-1 of the FEIR. Each Clean- Fuels project would have its own specific evaluation of visual impacts. The cumulative projects would create changes to existing visual environment and could produce area-wide significant impacts. As such, this impact would be considered potentially significant. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures 19- 10 (a) and (b) . The Board finds that the adoption of these mitigation measures constitutes a change to the Project that will reduce the Project's impact to a level that could still be potentially significant and unavoidable. III. DISCUSSION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines at Section 15126 (d) , the Project EIR includes a comparative analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the Project. While an EIR typically evaluates a "no project" and an "alternate site alternative, " state law prohibits the inclusion of these two types of alternatives for this EIR and other EIR's for Reformulated Gasoline Projects. (See Public Resource Code section 21176. 1 (h) ) . -36- A. Reduced Processing Alternative: Facts: The DEIR sets forth the discussion of the reduced processing alternative on pages 21-11 through 21-17 . This alternative evaluates the environmental effect of procuring hydrogen and transporting it by pipeline from an offsite location rather than building and operating a hydrogen plant onsite. The Unocal Refinery is connected by pipeline to a number of other Refineries that could provide hydrogen for Unocal consumption through their hydrogen production. One of these pipelines could be modified for hydrogen transportation. In general, this alternative would eliminate onsite impacts from the construction and operation of the Plant's proposed new hydrogen plant. The operation impacts, however, would not be changed because the impacts would be "exported" only to a nearby location at which hydrogen production would have to be increased. The use of hydrogen is necessary to produce reformulated gasoline. Impacts Analysis: 1. Land Use: The Project's impact analysis did not reveal land use impacts associated with the proposed hydrogen plant. Therefore, the land use impacts of this alternative would be the same as those described for the proposed Project. 2 . Geology, Soils and Seismicity: Under this alternative, the hydrogen plant would be eliminated. As a result, approximately 7 , 000 cubic yards of cut material would not be generated and approximately 2 , 000 yards of fill would be needed. This alternative would reduce the expected amounts of cut for the proposed project by 12% and of fill by 5%. 3 . Hydrology and Water Quality: Eliminating the proposed hydrogen plant would reduce construction impacts of the proposed project. However, the small size of the hydrogen plant implies that the reduction in -37- hydrology and water quality impacts would be minimal compared to the proposed Project. 4 . Vegetation, Wildlife and Fisheries: Because only existing pipelines and refinery facilities would be used and/or modified to handle the transport and production of hydrogen, there would be no impact to vegetation or wildlife. 5. Air Quality: While Alternative 1 would reduce the air quality impacts from the proposed Project sources, increased hydrogen production at other refineries in the Bay Area would transfer some of the air quality impacts to other parts of the Bay Area. Removal of the hydrogen plant from the proposed Project would reduce the Project criteria pollutant emissions by 2 to 30% on a peak daily basis and by 10 to 53% on an average annual basis. Under Alternative 1, peak daily emissions of VOCs PM,o, NO, and SO2 would still exceed significance thresholds. Construction emissions from a new plant would be eliminated. Thus, Alternative 1 would have lower on-site air quality impacts than the proposed Project, but it would not reduce any air quality impacts to a less than significant level. Any reduction in air emissions from Alternative 1 must also be considered in light of the necessary increase in emissions from increased production of hydrogen at an off-site location. 6. Public Health: This alternative would result in fewer onsite emission sources than the proposed Project and would therefore represent a correspondingly lower health risk in the Project vicinity. The health risk from the proposed Project due to the emission of toxic air contaminants was determined to be less than significant. Impacts from increased production of hydrogen at an offsite location cannot be adequately quantified because locations and operating conditions are unknown. -38- 7. Noise• This alternative would eliminate the hydrogen plant, one of the three major noise-generating components of the Project. The noise generated by this alternative, as well as for the proposed Project, would be below existing ambient noise levels. The noise impacts of Alternative 1 would be less than significant, the same as for the proposed Project. 8. Risk of Upset• By eliminating the hydrogen plant, Alternative 1 removes one source of hazardous materials that might endanger offsite residents. The risk posed by the hydrogen plant was evaluated and found to be less than significant. However, increasing pipeline transport of hydrogen would create the possibility of a pipeline release. A pipeline failure has a low potential to release hydrogen and cause a local explosion. The risk of impact of a pipeline failure would be less than significant. The net effect of this alternative would be to eliminate one less than significant impact, the hydrogen plant, and add another less than significant impact, transport of hydrogen by pipeline. 9 . Transportation and Circulation: Because the hydrogen unit is a small component of the overall project, elimination of the hydrogen plant would have a minimal effect on the size of the construction work force. Construction-related impacts would therefore remain the same. 10. Public Service: This alternative would have the same water, emergency response, and roadway impacts as the proposed Project. 11. Public Utilities and Energy: This alternative would result in lower construction energy use, but increased transportation energy use. Construction energy usage would decline because of the deletion of the hydrogen plant. Operations energy usage would remain unchanged. -39- If hydrogen were produced offsite, additional energy would be required to transport hydrogen to the site. 12 . Visual Quality: Under this alternative, the proposed hydrogen plant ,would be eliminated. With removal of the hydrogen plant, visual impacts would be lessened, particularly for views from the residential area south of the Refinery and from the Rodeo marina/shoreline area. These impacts were found to be less than significant for the proposed Project. 13 . Employment and Housing: This alternative would reduce construction requirements, thereby reducing the demand for construction laborers. The magnitude of employment reduction is unknown, but is estimated to be minimal based on the small part of the proposed Project represented by the hydrogen plant. 14 . Cultural Resources: This alternative would reduce grading and excavation activities. Because Project impacts on cultural resources could be mitigated to less than significant levels, the difference between this alternative and the proposed Project would be minimal. B. Reduced Importation Option Facts: The Project proposed by Unocal relies primarily on importation of the intermediates necessary to achieve reformulated gasoline requirements. The project therefore proposes to modify existing plant facilities and minimize the construction of new facilities. Alternative 2 would reduce importation and its associated environmental effects by increasing onsite production. To achieve this result MTBE would be produced and a fluid catalytic cracking unit would be added. These modifications would eliminate importation of MTBE, thereby reducing total marine tanker trips by 2 to 4 trips per year. The -40- modifications would also reduce importation of other light 'hydrocarbon intermediates. However, this alternative would potentially increase local environmental impacts due to increased onsite production. The major impacts from this alternative would probably arise from the emission of sulfur compounds from the fluid catalytic cracking unit. The production of MTBE would increase the potential for onsite releases of VOCs. Overall, this alternative would reduce marine spill potential at the expense of potentially higher air quality impacts. Impacts Analysis• 1. Land Use, Plans and Policies: The MTBE and fluid catalytic cracking units would not be expected to create land use effects different from or larger than those of the proposed Project. 2 . Geology, Soils and Seismicity: Under this alternative, onsite production would be expanded to reduce the need for tanker-delivered intermediates by adding MTBE production and a fluid catalytic cracking unit. No potentially significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels are expected from the construction of a fluid catalytic cracking unit. 3 . Hydrology and Water Ouali y: Construction of the MTBE manufacturing unit and fluid catalytic cracking unit would pose the same types of potential construction impacts as those of the proposed Project. Operation impacts would probably be higher than for the proposed Project. This alternative could potentially generate water quality impacts, though some mitigation might be possible to lessen these impacts. The reduction in marine traffic would reduce the likelihood of accidental spills due to product transfer at the terminal. However, the impact would still be significant. -41- 4 . Vegetation, Wildlife and Fisheries: Additional onsite construction and production would not significantly affect either vegetation and wildlife or their habitat. Reduction of tanker deliveries would reduce the potential for spill impacts to marine organisms and the marine environment. However, the impact would still be significant. 5. Air Ouality: This alternative would reduce Project related marine traffic. However, the production of MTBE would increase the potential for emission of VOCs onsite. The catalytic cracker could potentially release sulfur compounds, oxides of nitrogen and particulates from the catalytic cracking process. Annual average emissions due to stationary sources are likely to increase, since marine vessels contribute only minor amounts. Peak daily emissions are likely to decrease since marine vessels are the major contributor to these emission levels. However, quantitative analysis of emissions for these new units would be necessary to determine if the emissions would be significant. Thus, because the potential change in emissions associated with this alternative cannot be quantified, it is difficult to predict whether this alternative would result in any new or reduced significant impacts to air quality. 6. Public Health: This alterative would entail more new and modified emissions sources at the Refinery than would the proposed Project and may therefore represent a correspondingly higher health risk. The impact for this alternative would be potentially higher than the proposed Project impact and, while unlikely, has the potential for a significant risk to public health. 7. Noise: The noise generated by the new MTBE production unit and a new fluid catalytic cracking unit would increase over that experienced under the proposed Project. The impacts from this -42- alternative would be less than significant (after mitigation) as would the impact from the proposed Project. 8. Risk of Upset: Alternative 2 would reduce the number of marine tankers calling at the marine terminal. This lower vessel traffic would reduce the potential for spills that might result from collisions or groundings of tankers. In turn, reduced spills would reduce potential adverse consequences to sensitive receptors. Because the likelihood of such events is remote, Alternative 2 would not appreciably reduce potential risk of impacts to sensitive receptors. 9. Transportation and Circulation: The addition of the MTBE production capability and a new fluid catalytic cracking unit would cause a minor increase in the size of the construction work force and a correspondingly minor increase in construction-related impacts. This alternative's reduction in tanker traffic would reduce the already low maritime impacts relative to the proposed Project. 10. Public Services: This alternative would use more water than the proposed Project due to the two additional facilities. Because the impact on public emergency service providers under the proposed Project has been determined to be less than significant, 'no substantial change over the Project as proposed would result. 11. Public Utilities and Energy: This alternative would result in reduced overall energy demand for the Project. Energy demand for construction would be slightly higher, but this increase would be more than offset by reduced annual energy usage for operations. Operations energy usage would be reduced because while the energy required to produce the intermediaries would be the same, the energy required to transport these materials would be eliminated. -43- 12 . Visual Quality: Alternative 2 would add a fluid catalytic cracking unit. This unit would increase visual impacts from viewpoints in the southern area, although the overall impact would not be significant. If the unit were placed at a Refinery boundary, then the impacts would likely be significant. 13 . Employment and Housing: This alternative would increase construction requirements, thereby increasing the demand for construction labor. The alternative may also increase demands for operations employees. The magnitude of both of these employment increases is expected to be small due to the small size of the new units relative to the proposed Project as a whole. 14 . Cultural Resources: This alternative would result in slightly more grading and excavation activities, thus raising the potential for encountering cultural artifacts. However, because potential impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels, the potential impact of this alternative on cultural resources would be the same as the proposed Project. C. Mitigated Project and Improved .Planning Alternative Facts: This alternative includes all the proposed Project components plus each mitigation measure. In addition, Tank 109 would be relocated from the southern boundary to an interior, but unspecified, location at the Refinery. The Project analysis identified significant impacts related to noise during construction of Tank 109. Tank 109 contributed to some less- than-significant impacts to public health and visual - quality. Relocation to the site's interior would reduce the Project's impacts. -44- Impacts Analysis• 1. Land Use, Plans and Policies: The analysis of the proposed Project's land use did not identify any significant impacts. Because this alternative involves the relocation of Tank 109 to an interior location, and because such relocation would increase the distance from the Tank to the nearby school and residences, this alternative would reduce these less-than-significant Project impacts. 2 . Geology, Soils and Seismicity: By incorporating all of the proposed Project's mitigation measures associated with geology, soils and seismicity impacts, this alternative would reduce all significant Project impacts to less-than-significant levels. The relocation of Tank 109 should not create impacts above and beyond those identified for the proposed Project. 3 . Hydrology and Water Quality: Of the seven potential impacts analyzed, only one impact associated with construction of the proposed Project would be significant. The potential to inadvertently introduce unknown levels of constituents into the wastewater treatment system from construction activities is a significant impact. This alternative would incorporate Mitigation Measure 6-3 , which would ensure that pollutants released into the wastewater management system are treatable and are released in quantities that would not overwhelm the treatment process. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a level that is less than significant. 4 . Vegetation, Wildlife and Fisheries: Incorporating all of the proposed Project's mitigation measures, this alternative would reduce all such impacts to less than significant levels. -45- 5. Air Ouality: All but two impacts identified for air quality are significant and unavoidable. Therefore, incorporating all mitigation measures would not eliminate or reduce impacts to a less than significant level. However, this alternative would incorporate the mitigation measures developed for air quality impacts, which would reduce some of the unavoidable impacts. 6. Public Health: This alternative would be identical to the proposed Project with respect to public health because no significant public health impacts were identified for the proposed Project. However, relocation of Tank 109 would likely reduce further the less-than-significant public health impact of the proposed Project on the residential receptors and the school located to the south of the Refinery. 7 . Noise• By incorporating all of the proposed Project's mitigation measures associated with noise impacts, this alternative would reduce all such impacts to less than significant levels. 8 . Risk of Upset• Of the Project's 14 impacts, no impacts were found to be significant. 9. Transportation and Circulation: By incorporating all of the proposed Project's mitigation measures associated with traffic and circulation impacts, this alternative would reduce all impacts to less than significant levels. 10. Public Services: None of the water or emergency response impacts were found to be significant. -46- 11. Energy• All of the Project's four energy impacts were found to be less than significant and do not require mitigation measures that would be part of this alternative. 12 . Visual Quality: By incorporating all of the proposed Project's mitigation measures associated with visual impacts, this alternative would reduce all such impacts to less than significant levels. 13 . Employment and Housing: All of the Project's impacts were less than significant and therefore do not require mitigation measures. Two of the impacts were beneficial. 14 . Cultural Resources: - By incorporating Mitigation Measure 17-1, this alternative would reduce significant impacts to less than significant levels. E. Findings• The Board rejects Alternative 1, the Reduced Processing Alternative, because it would not reduce the Project's environmental impacts or would generate only small changes in the absolute magnitude of the proposed Project's impacts. A small temporary decrease in construction impacts would result from this alternative, coupled with a decrease in employment of workers needed to construct the hydrogen plant. Impacts from operations would remain about the same, however, because of the need for production of hydrogen at an offsite location. In addition, operational energy use would increase slightly due to the need to transport hydrogen to the plant from an offsite supplier via pipeline. Thus, this alternative is not a clearly preferred, environmentally superior alternative to the proposed Project. The Board rejects Alternative 2 , the Reduced Importation Alternative, which either has no effect on Project impacts, or generates small increases in the absolute magnitude of -47- significant impacts of the proposed Project. This alternative could create significant water quality, air quality and public health impacts. Decreasing the amount of marine traffic could decrease some significant impacts on air quality, hydrology and wildlife. Because this alternative appears to present a risk of higher overall impacts, it is rejected. The Board adopts Alternative 3 , the Mitigated Project and Improved Planning Alternative. Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative of the three alternatives considered and the Project as originally proposed. Alternative 3 eliminates several potentially significant impacts associated with the location and construction of Tank 109 in its original location by moving the Tank to an interior site within the Refinery. In addition, mitigation measures analyzed in the FEIR serve to reduce most potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance. Nearly all of the remaining significant impacts would also occur under either Alternatives 1 or 2 , but under those alternatives, other impacts and potential impacts would be created. IV. CUMULATIVE AND BENEFICIAL IMPACTS Cumulative impacts are discussed in Chapter 19 of the FEIR. A list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects for areas adjacent to the Project site is contained in pages 19-2 through 19-14 of the DEIR. Set forth below is a brief discussion of the potential cumulative impacts of the Project. The cumulative impact analysis contained in the Project EIR is based on the specific analysis conducted under each individual topic section and information contained in the FEIR. 1. Air Quality: The Project, in combination with other projects and other future projects, has a likely result of a significant increase in criteria pollutant emissions during construction, particularly in the event that other projects are constructed at the same time as Unocal's Project. It is -48- anticipated, however, that the significant cumulative impact on air quality in the region would be temporary and that the impact would cease upon the start up of the Reformulated Gasoline Projects and use of reformulated gasoline produced by such projects. A number of the projects analyzed in the cumulative impacts section are in fact Reformulated Gasoline Projects undertaken by other oil refining facilities. Because all feasible mitigation measures have been specified to control air emissions during construction of the Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project, no further mitigation can be applied. The cumulative effect of emission increases from future projects and emission reductions from the use of reformulated gasoline will produce a net reduction in pollutant emissions in the region and a beneficial cumulative impact. 2 . Noise: Unocal's Project, combined with the noise impacts of other projects, would not result in significant cumulative noise impacts at sensitive receptors in the area. 3 . Risk of Upset: With the exception of problems associated with earthquakes that could create contemporaneous accidents at several facilities, such process accidents and spills are totally independent of one another in terms of timing, characteristics, magnitude and contaminants associated with any specific release. A very low probability and independent- nature of cumulative risk of upset impacts creates a less than significant cumulative impact. 4 . Public Services and Emergency Response: The risk of upset analysis concluded that the cumulative risk of upset impact was less than significant. As a result, cumulative impacts to public service emergency response providers would be less than significant as well. 5. Eneray: - Cumulative development would increase the use of non-renewable energy resources. This impact would be considered less than significant. The impact is less than -49- significant because (1) CEQA mandates energy conservation for all projects that go through CEQA review in the future, (2) PG&E, as a public utility, plans and develops supplies sufficient to meet future energy demand, and (3) market-based initiatives to conserve energy and develop alternate energy sources are and will continue to be responsive to rising energy prices. These measures will ensure that individual projects do not waste energy and that supplies are developed to meet demand. 6. Visual Quality: The potential exists for visual impacts of cumulative industrial development of which the Project is an associated element. Several existing industrial facilities are proposing similar reformulated gasoline projects that will have similar visual impacts. The potential exists for significant cumulative impacts on the visual impacts of these projects taken together. This impact would be considered potentially significant. As to mitigation, individual clean fuel projects would be reviewed for conformance with visual-related policies of the County General Plan and for creation of demonstrable, negative adverse visual impact. In addition, the County should develop standards that address modifications to existing industrial developments. Although implementation of these measures would reduce cumulative impacts in the area, such impacts could still be potentially significant and unavoidable. 7 . Beneficial Impacts: The proposed Project will also create at least four beneficial impacts. These impacts are discussed in Chapter 19 of the FEIR, and are addressed below: a. Employment: The proposed Project would create a maximum of nine full-time post-construction jobs at the Refinery. The construction of the proposed Project would require a peak of 200 construction workers of various skill levels for a duration of six months. Construction employment would average 129 workers . per quarter over the 21-month construction period. (EIR, p. 19- 29) . -50- b. Cultural Resources: The possibility exists that artifacts will be encountered during construction activities on the Project site. Depending on what type of new information, if any, any uncovered artifacts might reveal, the potential exists for adding to the store of archaeological knowledge about Contra Costa County. (EIR, p. 19-29) . C. Net Reduction in Criteria Pollutant Emissions in the Region: The cumulative effect of criteria pollutant emission increases from clean fuels projects and emission reductions from use of reformulated gasoline result in a net reduction in pollutant emissions in the region. The aggregate reduction in emissions from reformulated gasoline projects would result in improved air quality and contribute to the attainment of national and state ambient air quality standards. Thus, there would be a cumulative beneficial impact on regional air quality as a result of operation of the proposed Project. (EIR, p. 19-30) . d. Reduced Cumulative Cancer Risk: The use of reformulated gasoline in California's vehicles would reduce cancer risk by an average of 129 cases in one million in the Bay Area. The reformulated gasoline produced by Unocal and other refinery companies in the Bay Area will reduce cancer risks from the use of this gasoline in motor vehicles. Analyses conducted by the California Air Resources Board indicate that the increased cancer risk from the reformulated gasoline projects would be more than compensated by the reduction in risk from the use of this gasoline in vehicles. (EIR, p. 19-30) . Findings: Based on the FEIR, the Board finds that the Project will only contribute to cumulative impacts in the areas of visual quality and local air quality. In recognition thereof, and having considered and adopted all feasible mitigation measures, the Board hereby adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations and finds therein that the Project's benefits outweigh the remaining significant unavoidable impacts. (See Section VII. ) -51- y V. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS The FEIR summarizes the Project's significant unavoidable , impacts at page 2-2 and 2-3 , with certain revisions contained in the Response to Comments, at 3-1 through 3-4 . CEQA requires that significant unavoidable impacts of the Project be described. The Project has avoided or reduced all potentially significant impacts to the extent feasible. Even after mitigation, the following significant impacts remain and are identified as significant unavoidable impacts: 1. Construction of the proposed Project will result in increased emissions of criteria pollutants and is considered an unavoidable significant impact. All feasible mitigation measures have been proposed and adopted to mitigate this impact. However, with implementation of these measures, the impact would remain a temporary significant unavoidable impact. 2 . Construction of the proposed Project will result in carbon monoxide concentrations at four project intersections in exceedance of State Ambient Air Quality standards during the construction. All feasible mitigation measures have been proposed and adopted to mitigate this impact. However, with implementation of these measures, the impact would remain a temporary significant unavoidable impact. 3 . The Project, in combination with other projects and other future projects, has a likely result of a significant increase in criteria pollutant emissions during Project construction, particularly if other projects are constructed at the same time as Unocal's Project. This cumulative impact would be temporary, and would occur at the start of this and other reformulated gasoline projects. 4 . The Project, in combination with other projects and other future projects, will add to the cumulative change in the -52- a visual environment associated with industrial development in the area. This cumulative impact is considered potentially significant. All feasible mitigation measures have been proposed and adopted to mitigate the visual impacts of the project. However, with implementation of these measures, the impact would remain a potential significant impact that is unavoidable. 5. Operation of the proposed Project would result in an increase of VOC emissions to the atmosphere, contributing to formation of ozone in the region. All feasible mitigation measures have been proposed and adopted to mitigate this impact. These mitigation measures will reduce annual average emissions of VOCs to a level of insignificance. However, with implementation of these measures, the impact of daily emissions associated with increased marine traffic would remain a significant unavoidable impact. 6. Operation of the proposed Project would result in an increase in nitrogen oxides emissions to the atmosphere. All feasible mitigation measures have been proposed and adopted to mitigate this impact. These mitigation measures will reduce annual average emissions of nitrogen oxides to a level of insignificance. However, with implementation of these measures, the impact of daily emissions associated with increased marine traffic would remain a significant unavoidable impact. 7 . Operation of the proposed Project would result in an increase of sulfur dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. Although average annual emissions of SOX are less than significant, maximum daily emissions would exceed the threshold of significance. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified to mitigate this impact. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 8. Operation of the proposed Project would result in an increase of PMto in the atmosphere. Although average annual -53- J emissions of PM10 are less than significant, maximum daily emissions would exceed the threshold of significance. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified to mitigate this impact. Therefore, these impacts would remain significant unavoidable impacts. 9. The proposed Project creates no significant new hazards to employees not already present at the Refinery. Due to uncertainties about risks to individual employees, such risks are inherently speculative. All feasible mitigation measures have been proposed and adopted to mitigate this potential impact. However, with implementation 'of these measures, it cannot be demonstrated that the risks would be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. VI. IRREVERSIBLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The Project EIR on pages 20-1 discusses significant irreversible impacts. CEQA requires an analysis of the justification of the Project's impact on non-renewable resources during the initial and continual phases of the Project that may be irreversible because large commitments of such resources make removal or non-use thereafter unlikely. Irreversible commitments of resources should be evaluated in the EIR to assure the current assumption is justified. Primary impacts and particularly secondary impacts generally commit future generations to similar uses. Another potential source of irreversible damage can be environmental accidents associated with the Project. Under Section 15127 of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of irreversible significant environmental impacts is not required for the Unocal Project EIR. Section 15127 states that the discussion concerning irreversible significant environmental impacts required in Section 15126 (f) is only required if the proposed Project involves one of the conditions listed below as -54- r J applicable to Section 15126 (e) . None of these conditions are present here. VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Following a determination that significant impacts remain after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, approval of a project must be accompanied by a Statement of Overriding Considerations. CEQA requires the benefits of a project to be balanced against its significant unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15093) . The Project EIR discussed 100 potential direct significant environmental impacts, in addition to cumulative impacts, that could result from the Project. Only nine of these potentially significant impacts would result in unmitigated or unavoidable impacts. The Board determines that the benefits of this Project outweigh these unavoidable environmental impacts. In making this determination, the following factors and public benefits were considered. This Statement of Overriding Considerations is being adopted after full consideration and adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. A. Reduced Emissions: One of the main objectives of the Project is to produce cleaner reformulated gasolines as required under the State Clean Air Act and the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. These laws require the manufacture and sale of reformulated gasoline with a combination of basic ingredients designed to produce cleaner combustion in motor vehicles than the gasoline used at present. Through cleaner combustion, improvements in air quality and public health can be realized. The California Air Resources Board ("CARB") in its draft report dated January 1993 provides estimates of the substantial reductions in emissions of criteria pollutants that will result from the use of reformulated -55- gasoline. It is estimated that in 1996, use of reformulated gasoline produced by Unocal's Refinery would create emissions reductions in the Bay Area of PM10 by 123 tons per year, VOCs by 358 tons per year, NO, by 438 tons per year, and CO by 8, 275 tons per year. Emissions reductions for Contra Costa County are estimated to be reduced annually by 24 tons of PM10, 119 tons of VOCs, 80 tons of NO.,, and 1, 114 tons of CO. In addition to reductions of criteria pollutants, gasoline powered vehicles are a major source of suspected toxic air contaminants. Reformulated gasoline specifications developed by the CARB reduce gasoline powered vehicle toxic air contaminants and their associated theoretical cancer potential. The CARB studies associated with implementation of the clean fuels legislation shows significant reductions in the emissions of toxic air contaminants, specifically including benzene and butadiene. The CARB studies also show a decrease in the potential for cancer cases in California as a result of the use of reformulated gasoline. The decreases in cancer risks and decreases in air contaminants caused as a result of the use of the clean fuels from the Project more than offset emissions produced by the construction and operation of the Project. The Project will also result in' a substantial decrease in emissions of benzene and butadiene reducing cancer risks in the immediate project vicinity. B. Beneficial Economic Impacts,: As set forth in the FEIR on page 19-29 , the proposed Project will increase permanent employment at the Refinery by nine full- time jobs. Construction of the proposed Project would create a peak demand for 200 construction workers for a duration of six months or an average of 129 construction workers per quarter over the 21-month construction period. -56- a There is a projected surplus of labor relative to jobs for each year from 1990 to 2000, ranging from a low of 13 , 400 to a high of 32 ,700. The recent recession has reduced demand for construction jobs relative to supply below the level of a healthy economy. For these reasons, it is anticipated that the proposed Project would have a beneficial effect on local employment rates. In addition to the employment increases as a result of the Project, the Project also will enable the existing Refinery to comply with the mandatory state legislation requiring the production and sale of clean fuels by, 1996. The Project will allow the refinery complex to remain a viable employer within the County of Contra Costa by enabling the Refinery to comply with the state and federal legislation. C. Beneficial Revenue Impacts: In addition to the increased employment opportunities discussed above, financial revenues are predicted as a result of the construction and operation of the Project in the form of state and local sales taxes and an increase in annual property taxes up to $1 million. -57- :f d LAND USE PERMIT #2038-93 & APPEAL UNOCAL CORPORATION (Applicant & Owner) The applicant requests approval of a land use permit for the Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project. If approved,the project would be located on approximately 25 acres of the 1,100 acre Unocal San Francisco Refinery. This project also includes a 3.7 acre off-site parking area on two contiguous parcels (Parcel Nos. 357-202-025, 026), located south of and adjacent to the. Unocal Refinery property between San Pablo Ave., and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. If approved, the project would involve the construction and operation of two new refinery components (a Hydrogen Plant and a Steam Boiler Plant) and the modification of three existing processing units (the Pentane Handling/Benzene Saturation equipment, the Gasoline Blender and the Steam/Power Plant). In addition, the project includes the construction of a maximum of 10 new storage tanks and increase in shipping order to transport reformulated gasoline components between Unocal's San Francisco and Los Angeles Refineries, additional pipe- lines for transferring intermediate stream and feeds between pro- cessing units and tanks, additional drain systems needed to connect project components to the existing refinery process drain systems and changes to utility systems to support project needs for water, electricity, natural gas and hydrogen. Rodeo Area. Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 13 December 1994 - 2:00 P.M. •f` • Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa c FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON 3 County DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT '•, b DATE: December 7, 1994 asT9 �otiri`�`t �~ SUBJECT: HEARING ON APPEAL OF THE CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR AND THE APPROVAL OF LAND USE PERMIT #2038-93 FOR THE UNOCAL CORPORATION'S REFORMULATED GASOLINE PROJECT; (Shoreline Environmental Alliance, Plumbers and Steamfitters Local #342 and Doyle Williams, and Unocal Corporation (Appellants) , Unocal Corporation (Applicant) . SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Certify that the Final EIR is adequate and complete and that the Board has considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project; 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's certification of the Final EIR and the approval of Land Use Permit # 2038-93. 3. Adopt the findings and mitigation monitoring program provided ' in the Board's packet. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The County Planning Commission certified the Final EIR and approved the land use permit for the Unocal Reformulated Gasoline project on November 15, 1994. Appeals of these decisions were filed by Adams and Broadwell representing the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local #342, by the Golden Gate University Environmental Law and Jtice Clinic representing Shoreline Environmental Alliance, and by , nocal Corporation. This report includes a summary ofeachf the appeal letters along with the staff analysis. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNAT 7 � RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION F BOARD/COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: -NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Catherine Kutsuris 646-2031 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY S Page Two Unocal Corporation submitted letters responding to the Adams and Broadwell appeal and the Golden Gate University Environmental Law appeal. These letters have been included in the Board packet. 1. Adams and Broadwell Appeal The Adams & Broadwell appeal is based on their July 25, 1994 comments on the Draft EIR, which the County responded to in the Final EIR, and their letter of October 4, 1994 which was submitted to the Planning Commission. They base their appeal on three major points: ■ The EIR disclosed a new significant impact and must be recirculated; ■ The project would harm public health and safety; and ■ The Final EIR failed to adequately respond to comments on the Draft EIR. New Significant Impact: Adams & Broadwell asserts that the EIR should be recirculated because the Final EIR includes a new significant impact, that being a significant and unavoidable impact on worker safety. Although the Final EIR added such an impact, the document did so based on information contained in the Draft EIR. The Final EIR did not provide any new information or use any new methodology (Refer to Response AB2-37 in the Response to Comments Document) . Recirculation may be triggered by inclusion of significant new information which did not occur in this case. Thus, there is no basis for recirculating the EIR. Harm To Public Health And Safety: Adams & Broadwell asserts that the EIR did not take into consideration Unocal's management practices, alleging a poor environmental compliance track record and poor management practices leading to harmful releases. On the contrary, the EIR discloses Unocal's compliance record as it relates to this project. (See the Draft EIR, pages 6-29 to 6-34 (water quality) , 8-19 (air quality) , and 11-4 to 11-5 (accidental releases) ] . If a potential impact would exacerbate a situation of non-compliance, then the EIR treats it as a significant impact. No such impacts are expected for this project. The EIR assumed that human and equipment errors would occur and evaluated the potential impacts accordingly. For impacts due to on-site accidents, the Risk of Upset analysis evaluated "credible worst-case accidents". For twelve potential accidents, the analysis identified the credible worst types of equipment failure or human errors that might occur, and then evaluated the potential impacts on public health and safety. This analysis found no significant impacts to public safety due to the proposed project. Similarly, the health risk analysis (Chapter 9 of the DEIR) assumed credible worst case conditions for adversely affecting public health -- maximum exposure; most carcinogenic chemicals; maximum uptake of these chemicals; worst case weather conditions. The conditions attached to the Land Use Permit require protective measures, in addition to the mitigation measures. These measures reduce potential impacts even further than indicated in the Final EIR and include, among other items, fence line monitors surrounding the refinery, protective retrofitting of Hillcrest school, and participation in providing for an emergency response van. Adams & Broadwell's assertion that the project will cause an increase in selenium discharges is not supported by evidence in the Page Three record of the project. As explained in the Final EIR, Response AB2-32. , whether one interprets Unocal's current selenium discharge levels as "in compliance" or "out of compliance" has no effect on the conclusions of this EIR. The EIR clearly reports the amount of selenium currently being discharged from the San Francisco Refinery and indicates that this amount exceeds the standard set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Any increased discharge due to the proposed project would be considered. a significant impact, whatever Unocal's compliance history, since the background selenium levels in the receiving water body are currently considered too high. What matters is whether or not the project would cause an increase in selenium discharge. As explained in the Final EIR, Responses AB2-2, AB2-5 and AB2-31, the project would not cause an increase in selenium discharges since Unocal will not process more crude and the project does not alter Unocal's hydrotreating capacity: Since there is no increase in selenium discharge, the project cannot exacerbate Unocal's current selenium discharge problem. Inadequate EIR Responses: Adam and Broadwell's October 4, 1994 letter relates their disagreement with some of the responses in the Response to Comments Document. Their comments focus primarily on selenium, which is discussed above, and air quality impacts. Adams & Broadwell asserts that the EIR did not consider increased sulfur dioxide emissions at Unocal's Los Angeles refinery due to its increased processing of intermediate stocks being transferred to the San Francisco refinery. There is no reason to presume that the Los Angeles Refinery will need to increase its total production of these intermediate stocks. Even if intermediate stock production would increase at the Los Angeles refinery, any increased emissions would either be within that refinery's emission limits or would trigger a permit amendment and thus a separate CEQA review for that refinery. concerning emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, the mitigation measures imposed on Unocal's San Francisco Refinery fully mitigate the increased annual average emissions of these compounds. Thus, additional controls on older tanks and additional nitrogen oxide retrofits are not needed, whether or not they are feasible. As explained in Response to Comment AB2-19, such controls would be inappropriate mitigation for peak daily emissions, which occur only twelve times a year. Adams & Broadwell also asserts that the mitigation measure for nitrogen oxide controls was inadequate since it did not specify that Unocal must use ammonia injection to mitigate the impact. This level of detail is not necessary. The mitigation measure specified the general type of action required, the source to be controlled, the deadline for the change, and the performance standard that must be met. The EIR .did not fully mitigate the peak daily emissions of the proposed project, which are driven almost entirely by marine traffic. Adams & Broadwell claims that the EIR (1) underestimated emissions due to marine traffic and (2) failed to fully evaluate marine mitigation measures. The EIR for this project and for Unocal's Los Angeles reformulated fuels project appear to have conflicting information concerning marine shipments to the San Francisco Refinery. As stated in the Response to Comment AB2-11, an increase of twelve marine vessels per year is the appropriate (and conservative) estimate for this project. Other changes occurring between the two refineries not associated with this reformulated fuels project are not subject to this CEQA review. However, even if a larger number of marine vessels were assumed, the EIR conclusion would not change. The air quality impacts from marine vessels are primarily emissions of sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides due to combustion. Peak daily emissions of these s Page Four compounds are already considered significant and unavoidable. No additional feasible mitigation measures would exist, since Unocal- owned ships already use low-sulfur fuel. No technically feasible controls of nitrogen oxides are available for marine vessels -- whether or not they are owned by Unocal. (See Response to Comments, RESPONSE AB2-19, Page 2-158) . These localized air quality impacts are effectively mitigated by reductions in air emissions associated with combustion of Unocal's market share of reformulated fuels in the Bay Area. Reductions in emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds more than offset the localized increases in annual average emissions of criteria pollutants due to this proposed project. 2. Shoreline Environmental Alliance, November 22, 1994 The Shoreline Environmental Alliance bases its appeal on four points, two of which address conditions of approval and two which address the EIR. Inadequate Protection of "Chemically Sensitized" Individuals: Shoreline Environmental Alliance asserts that the EIR failed to address the potential health impacts on "chemically sensitized" " individuals in the vicinity of the proposed project and therefore the permit should be denied. The EIR's health risk analysis used the most current and conservative methodology to predict impacts on public health. There is no professionally accepted methodology to predict impacts on especially sensitive populations, since there is not a clear understanding of the dose-response relationship in these individuals. Health risk analysis compensates for this shortcoming by incorporating many health protective assumptions into the model -- maximum exposure, maximum number of exposure pathways, credible worst-case weather conditions, and maximum emissions. In reality, no individual would ever be subject to all of these "maximums". But the health risk assessment assumes one might, and evaluates the project's health risk for this unlikely, hypothetically exposed person. Thus the risk, imposed on the maximum exposed individual typically overestimates true health risks, and serves as a proxy for sensitive populations. Health risk analysis does not estimate the expected actual risks, but presents a "not greater than" number. Thus, the EIR was based on the most current health risk assessment methodology, which provides an acceptable analysis of impacts on sensitive populations. Underestimation of Health Risks due to MTBE: Shoreline Environmental Alliance asserts that the EIR underestimated health impacts due to the handling of MTBE, stating that it may be a new significant environmental impact. The Alliance believes that the EIR should be recirculated and the permit be denied. The U.S EPA recently released a draft report evaluating potential health effects of MTBE, an oxygenate. The analysis is still inconclusive and has not progressed to the point of being incorporated into a quantitative methodology for evaluating public health risk. After EPA has issued its final report, the agency will decide whether MTBE should be included within the guidelines for preparing health risk assessments. Health effects from the use of MTBE would not be treated as a separate impact, but would be incorporated into the health risk assessment prepared for a proposed project. Page Five One tentative conclusion of the report is that MTBE-'s carcinogenicity is probably no worse than that of gasoline, which has a relatively low potency. In addition, the report tentatively concluded that MTBE does not appear to create a significant chronic noncancer effect. Until EPA has completed its analysis and concluded how, if at all, to revise health risk analysis, there is no additional analysis to be performed. and thus, no reason to recirculate the EIR. Condition 76 Inadequate: Condition #76 requires Unocal to install fence line monitors on all fences, but it does not specify that the monitors be "remote" or that there be direct and immediate public access to the monitoring data as it is generated. Shoreline Environmental Alliance requests that the permit be denied because this condition lacks these two stipulations. The discussions in the public hearing centered on remote monitors - - monitors designed to detect small concentrations of hazardous constituents. The Commission's decision recognized that Unocal . needed to complete its pilot project prior to designing and implementing a successful monitoring program. Thus Condition 76 . requires that Unocal submit . its design for the fence line monitoring system to the Planning Commission by August 1, 1995 for approval. If the Commission is not satisfied that the monitors will provide the information and notification intended, the Commission can reject the design. Similarly, the design of the system will also indicate how the monitoring results will be handled. If the Commission is concerned about tampering with or failure to respond appropriately to monitoring results, then it can reject the design until it is satisfied with such safeguards. If the Board believes that the condition be should clarified, Condition # 76 could be amended to amended as follows: The applicant shall design and submit to the Commission for review and approval no later than August 1, 1995 a remote. fence line monitoring system for all fences. The system, if approved by this Commission, shall be in place and operating by November. 1, 1995, and shall fully incorporate the best available technology. When.:reviewing.., e proposed system, the: ommidsio'n shall provide.; for publ 'c access to the data' generated and shallconsider the abiity .of the;;system to be linked to ;the Count y.:s emergency not ficatson program "Good Faith Negotiations" Unclear Standard: Shoreline Environmental Alliance asserts that the use of "good faith negotiations" does not have a legal standard on which to base a determination and the condition allows discretion by the Zoning Administrator of issue by which he/she has no expertise. The Alliance requests that the phrase be further defined and assigned to someone with expertise in this area of law. The Planning Commission specified that the applicant must submit at a frequency of three months, a written report outlining the progress of negotiations towards a Good Neighbor Agreement. Good faith negotiations, as determined by the Zoning Administrator, is a condition of the permit. Similar to most conditions of approval, the Zoning Administrator would be responsible for determining whether Unocal has complied with this requirement. The Zoning Administrator is a duly designated part of the Planning Agency and Page Six . was created pursuant to Government Code Section 65100. As such, the Zoning Administrator is an appropriate division of the Planning Agency to hear and decide on such items. The decisions of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Board. 3. Unocal Appeal, November 23, 1994 Unocal submitted a letter dated December 5, 1994 in support of their appeal of the four additional conditions of approval added by the County Planning Commission (Conditions # 76-79) Condition #76: Fenceline Monitoring: Condition #76 requires Unocal to design and submit to .the Planning Commission by August 1, 1995 a fence line monitoring system for all fences. The condition further requires that the approved system shall be in place and operating by November 1, 1995. Unocal requests that the condition be replaced by their items #1-8 as stated in their December 5, 1995 appeal letter (refer to page 4 and 5 of the appeal letter) . In short, the changes proposed by Unocal would: ■ Add a six month testing program which must be designed by January 1, 1995; ■ Set other testing program deadlines (e.g. ordering equipment by March 31, 1995; installing equipment within sixty days of receipt) ; ■ Remove the requirement to submit the design of the program to the County Planning Commission by August 1, 1995 and to install the approved system by November 1, 1995; ■ Specify that the decision on the adequacy of the testing program and the monitoring be between Unocal and the community rather than by the Planning Commission; ■ Allow for Unocal to make the finding that a "full-scale" monitoring program is not feasible. These changes are inconsistent with the Planning Commission's discussion and decision. Condition #76 does not require Unocal to submit the design of the monitoring program until August 1, 1995. This allows at least seven months for design and testing. The Planning Commission, in rendering their decision, understood that some design and testing would be necessary. They also understood that Shell Oil and Chevron have been working on similar monitoring devices. . It is prudent to require that the fence line monitoring system be submitted to the Planning Commission for their review and approval. The language proposed by Unocal does not provide assurance that a fence line monitoring system will be installed. Unocal's appeal letter objected to the requirement that the fence line monitoring system be place on all fences. A monitoring system would not be of much benefit if placed on the fences bordering the Bay on the west or bordering the vacant agricultural lands to the r Page Seven east. Similarly, monitoring systems on the fences which border San Pablo Avenue which bisects the facility would not likely provide any better information than could be obtained by monitoring on the fences to the north and south of the facility. Thus, staff recommends that Condition #76 be amended to clarify that the fence line monitoring system is required for the fences on the north and south of the facility. Condition #77: Cummings Skyway: This condition requires Unocal to commit $4,500,000 or an alternate amount determined by the Board to Supervisors for the construction of the Cummings Skyway extension and to cooperate with Contra Costa County and other interested parties from the Rodeo and Crockett area such as Wickland Oil Company. Unocal believes that this condition should be eliminated. Their appeal letter states that there is no nexus between project traffic impacts and the imposition of the $4.5 million dollars, and that the requirement is unconstitutional. Unocal also states that the condition. is vague in that it does not identify when the funding will be required and leaves open the possibility that the Board of Supervisors will increase the amount. The County Planning Commission included this requirement when they approved the land use permit. The proposed project will added traffic (both construction and operation) on area roads. Conditions #78 and 79: Good Neighbor Agreement: Conditions 78 and 79 relate to achieving.a Good Neighbor Agreement. Condition #78 requires Unocal to submit to the Zoning Administrator a report outlining the progress of negotiations towards a Good Neighbor Agreement. Good faith negotiations are required as a condition of the permit. If the Zoning Administrator finds that good faith negotiations have not been facilitated, the Zoning Administrator must institute revocation proceedings of the land use permit. Condition #79 requires the applicant to submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval the negotiated Good Neighbor Agreement. Unocal's appeal requests that these conditions be modified to permit an appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator to the Board of Supervisors. The County Ordinance Code provides that administrative decision are appealable to the Board of Supervisors. The Zoning Administrator's decision regarding Unocal's compliance with Condition of Approval # 78 and #79 would be appealable to the Board. Accordingly, no additional clarification is required. NOTIPICATION LIST - ITNOCAL CORPORATION - LUP #2038-93 & Appeal. Page #1 John Swett Unified School Dist. Bobby & Jerry White UNOCAL CORPORATION P. 0. Box 847 971 California Street 1380 San Pablo Avenue Crockett, California 94525 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Unocal Properties, Inc. Leslie Wilson Edward & Dolores Yuzon P. 0. Box 7600 1091 California Street 959 California Street Los Angeles, California 90051 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Wickland Oil Terminals Minda Pinlac Gregorio Alcantara P. 0. Box 13648 1055 California Street 915 California Street Sacramento, California 95853 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 East Bay Regional Park District Premjit & Harjinder Rai Barbara Ann Jacko 2950 Peralta Oaks Court 1019 California Street 914 Springwood Court Oakland, California 94605 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Housing Authority, Contra Costa Frank & Roberta Hensley John Pendleton County 985 California Street 956 Springwood Court P. 0. Box 2396 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Martinez, California 94553 East Bay Municipal Utility Dist. Rodeo Sanitary District Robert Apodaca & Ann Leigh P. 0. Box 24055 P. 0. Box 87 998 Springwood Court Oakland, California 94623 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 State of California Maxine Hagar & Woodrow Roche Sharon Parker 1807 - 13th'Street 3169 Teigland Road 1031 Springwood Court Sacramento, California 95814 Lafayette, California 94549 Rodeo, California 94572 Edgardo & Maria Tioseco Peter Fimbres & Florence Fimbres 278 Coronado Street John & Maria Fonseca 1079 California Street 843 Laurel Court Hercules, California 94547 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Alfredo Rogayan James Sharpe, Jr. 1031 California Street 1043 California Street 947 Barbara Johnson ingwood Court Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeol,rCalifornia 94572 Lemon & Bedell Brown Jose & Dinah Montoya Grace 997 California Street 1009 California Street 905 Springwood Court Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 NOTIFICATION LIST - UNOCAL #2038-93 & Appeal.- Page #2 Daniel Sanders & Maria Huntington Howard Masumura Antonio Villavincencio 937 California Street 1081 Viewpoint Boulevard 1075 Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo; California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Fernando & Julia Costa Melford & Sue Young Olben & Valentina Guzman 1087 Viewpoint Boulevard 178,�Goldenrod Drive 1069 Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo, California 94572 Hercules, California 94547 Rodeo, California 94572 Charles & Roxarma Sager Michael & Judith O'Hara Cristino Fermin 907 California Street 3440 Stewarton Drive Building 877, Apt.#528 Rodeo, California 94572 El Sobrante, California 94803 Governors Island, New York 1000 Louis & Susan Bain Rosa Dela Marshall Walker III 928 Springwood Court Rodeo California 94572 942 Springwood Court P. 0. Box 423 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Thomas Angella Michael & Wen Adams 970 Springwood Court �' Thomas & Lisa Gillespie Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo,1Cali Californiaewpoint 94572 Fernando Padilla Mark & Lesley Miller Daniel Sjaffer & J. Steneberg 1012 Springwood Court 1026 Springwood Court 1074 Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Gang Sun & Angel Yee. Michael & Sherry La.Muth Eddie & Cora Neal 1003 Springwood Court . . 1108 Myrna Way Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Joseph V. & James Muzzine Charles & Patricia Green Joseph Au & Lau Fan 41 Pennington Court 961 Springwood Court 3700 Hidden Springs Court Crockett, California 94525 Rodeo, California 94572 El Sobrante, California 94803 Kevin & Stephanie Kierce Gilbert Bernhard, Jr. Thomas & Carole Tyminski 933 Springwood Court 919 Springwood Court 1157 Langlie Way Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California .94572 View Park Homeowners Association Inmaculada & Cesar Estrella Steven & Cecelia Barker 3000 Clayton Road 1093 Viewpoint Boulevard 1145 Langlie Way Concord, California 94519 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 NOTIFICATION LIST - UNOCAL #2038-93 & Appeal - Page #3 Rebecca Harrison Edwin & Priscilla Abaya Wilfredo & Joyce Balzomo 1121 Langlie Way 1056 Viewpoint Boulevard 1061 Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Uday Mahraaj Andrew Lemmons, Jr. Randle & S.M. Rosenberger 1053 View Point Boulevard 1049 Viewpoint Boulevard 1109 Langlie Way Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Eli & Josefina Cereca Eddie Kwok Chan & Lan Wong martin & Jann Edmunds P. 0. Box 664 1050 Viewpoint Boulevard 1103 Myrna Way Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Teresita Salvador Elmer & David Link Ma-Chi & Chio-Duan Chen P. 0. Box 6739 P. 0. Box 363 1.112 Viewpoint Boulevard Tamuning, GU 96931 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Nabil Abdullah & Layla George Glen Schuetz zlmie erf Noulevard 1080 Viewpoint Boulevard 1102 Myrna Way Rodeo California 9evar Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 , 4572 Joselito Ramelb Leon & Benjamina Sanches Russell & Nanc Hudson-Bratburd 1114 Myrna. Way 1075 Langlie Way 1136 Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Charles & Teresa Hanmler Jose & Sonia Rodriquez ' Kathryn Augustin 1056 Langlie Way 1161 Langlie Way 1148 Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Danny K. Domingo Wayne & Sally Lew Julian Lorenzo 1153 Langlie Way 1149 Langlie Way 142 Amethyst Court Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Hercules, California 94547 Swee Sein & Trixie Tan Datar, Jasminder & Gurvinder Rai Randall & Linda Jackson 813 Skyline Drive 1137 Langlie Way 1139 Viewpoint Boulevard Daly City, California 94.015 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 John & Maryann Killmer Jose & Elinor Gerbacio Arnold Rail:�bac 1129 Langlie Way 1125 Langlie Way 1127 Viewpoint ulevard Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 NOTIFICATION LIST - UNOCAL - LUP 42038-93 & Appeal - Page #4 ' Antonio Fabella Om & Saroj Aggarwal Mark & Donald Stinar 1117 Langlie Way 34803 Warwick Court 1115 Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo, California 94572 Fremont, California 94555 Rodeo, California 94572 Danny Mata & E. Ermiline Charlie Ugalde Alexander & Emma Navarro 1113 'Myrna Way 1107 Myrna Way 5060 Yvonne Way Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Sacramento, California 95823 Charles & Donna Bennett Gregory & Querobin Roldan James Petrovits, Jr. 1104 Viewpoint Boulevard 1108 Viewpoint Boulevard 1163 Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Kevin Hue Giang & Debbie Quan Joey & Marjorie Leong Priya Ahluwalia 1116 Viewpoint Boulevard 1120 Viewpoint Boulevard 1222 Donald Drive Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Paul Yim Pok Mar & Winnie Tam George & Aurora Diaz Kenneth Charles Ceremony 839 Kirkham Street 1132 Viewpoint Boulevard 1252 Donald Drive San Francisco, California 94122 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Ronald Dorton James Lightfoot Tony & Connie Szeto 5407 Brookwood Lane 1144 Viewpoint Boulevard 753 Big Ben Drive El Sobrante, California 94803 Rodeo, California 94572 Pacifica, California 94044 Russell Ta-Kwan Ryan & Gina Miyamoto Mark Okazaki 1152 Viewpoint Boulevard 1156 Viewpoint Boulevard p Rodeo, California 94572 1256 Stirling Drive Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Joseph & Linda Connolly Mike & Teri Adili p y 1143 Viewpoint Boulevard Alen Rasmussen 1164 Viewpoint Boulevard p 1279 Donald Drive Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Michael Blasingame Michael & Kathleen Zizi Mila Zamora 1135 Viewpoint Boulevard 1131 Viewpoint Boulevard 1247 Donald Drive Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 John Drago & Canasa Elvira Roberto Haleco Gary & Laura Pisciotto. 1123 Viewpoint Boulevard 1119 Viewpoint Boulevard. 678 La Corso Drive Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Walnut Creek, California 94598 NOTIFICATION LIST - UNOCAL - LUP #2038-93 &Appeal - Page #5 Daniel Javier Harold Speed Kuo-Tai Huang 1111 Viewpoint Boulevard 1107 Viewpoint Boulevard 40386 Loro Place Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Fremont, California 94539 Stephen Ber dall Randolph & Lois Kelley p 9 1097 Viewpoint Boulevard John. & Joan Perez 1101 Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo, ewpifnt Boulevard 94572 1155 Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Warren L. Lee & Weng Sau George & Mary Ling Suzanne Stine 1846 Pheasant Drive 1212 Donald Drive 1108 Claeys Court Hercules, California 94547 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Yuk Choy & Joanne Chong Samuel & Julia Arnold James & Patricia Gaan 110 Coral Drive 1242 Donald Drive 1247 Stirling Drive Orinda, California 94563. Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rim & Keum Lee Angelo Puccioni Jehon & Jennifer Grist 110 Coral Drive 1272 Donald Drive 1227 Stirling Drive Orinda, California 94563 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Tulio Gallegos, Sr. Angelita Paligutan John Lewis 1292 Donald Drive 1252 Stirling Drive 2811 East Main Street Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Humboldt, TN 38343 Steven & Theresa Johnson Grover Harris & Joan Locke Leon 81 Gloria Catalan 1260 Stirling Drive 4635 Elmwood Road 1151 Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo, California 94572 E1 Sobrante, California 94803 Rodeo, Ca.lifornia. 94572 Eddy Wing-Foo & Mary Gee Birsurinder Brar Angel & Violet Sosa s Court 1271 Donald Drive 1253 Donald Drive 1104 Claeys Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Harold & Rita Williams Manuel Machado & Irene Martins Robert Baker 1241 Donald Drive 28 Martins Lane 1239 Stirling Drive Rodeo, California 94572 El Sobrante, California 94803 Rodeo, California 94572 Bock & Betty Lim Cheng Hsiang & Celia Wu Arne & Terri Parik [215 Donald Drive 1490 - 31st Avenue 2.23 Stirling Drive todeo, California 94572 San Francisco, California 94122 Rodeo, California 94572 NOTIFICATION LIST - UNOCAL - LUP #2038-93 & Appeal - Page #6 Robert & Joyce Hodge Occupant Occupant ' 1159 Viewpoint Boulevard 1075 Viewpoint Boulevard 1143 Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Enrica Gregorio Occupant Occupant 1147 Viewpoint Boulevard 1061 Viewpoint Boulevard 1131 Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Connie & Dora Burse Occupant Occupant 1248 Stirling Drive 1135 Viewpoint Boulevard 1119 Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Howard Mason, Jr. Occupant Occupant 1231 StirlingDrive 1123 Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo, California 94572 1017 Springwood Court R Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 View Park Homeowners Association. Occupant Occupant 1776 Ygnacio Valley Rd #216 1031 Springwood Court 975 Springwood Court Walnut Creek, California 94598 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Occupant Occupant Occupant 601 California Street 989 Springwood Court 933 Springwood Court Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Occupant Occupant Occupant 1003 Springwood Court 947 Springwood Court 1081 Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Occupant Occupant Occupant 961 Springwood Court 905 Springwood Court 1065 Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Occupant Occupant Occupant 919 Springwood Court 1087 Viewpoint Boulevard 1139_ Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo, California 94.572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Occupant Occupant Occupant 1093 Viewpoint Boulevard 1069 Viewpoint Boulevard 1127 Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 NOTIFICATION LIST - UNOCAL - LUP #2038-93 - Page #7 Occupant Occupant Occupant 1115 Viewpoint Boulevard 1271 Donald Drive 1155 Viewpoint Boulevard Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 1111ant Occupant pp Viewpoint Boulevard 1241 Donald Drive Occupant Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Coral Drive Rodeo, California 94572 Occupant Occupant California Conservation Dept. 1101 Viewpoint Boulevard 1215 Donald Drive Division of Mines & Geology Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 185 Berry Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, Calif. 94107 Occupant Occupant Dept. of Toxic Subs. Control 1279 Donald Drive 1159 Viewpoint Boulevard 700 Heinz Street Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Berkeley, California 94710 . Occupant Occupant ant Air Resources Board . 1247 Donald Drive 1147 Viewpoint Boulevard ATTN: Terrel Ferrera Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 P. 0. Box 2815 Sacramento, Calif. 95812 Occupant Occupant Office of Historic Preservatio: 1221 ant Donald Drive 1103pViewpoint Boulevard P. 0. Box 942896 Rodeo,, CaliforniaRodeC94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Sacramento, California 996-000 Occupant Occupant State Fire Marshal 1207 Donald Drive 1293DonaldDrive 2300 Merced Street 1207 Rodeo, California 94572 _ Rodeo, California 94572 San Leandro, California 94577 ATTN: Francis Wright Occupant Occupant Department of Fish & Game 1151Viewpoint Boulevard 1253 Donald Drive Region #3 Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 P. 0. Box 47 Yountville, California 94599 Occupant Occupant Department of Water Resources 1107 Viewpoint Boulevard 1231 Donald Drive 1416 - 9th Street Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 Sacramento, California 95814-5 Occupant Occupant San Francisco Bay Conservation 1097 Viewpoint Boulevard 1211 Donald Drive Development Commission Rodeo, California 94572 Rodeo, California 94572 30 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2011 San Francisco, Calif. 94102 Attn: Joan Lindstrom NOTIFICATION LIST - UNOCAL - LUP #2038-93 & Appeal - Page #8 _ State Dept. of Health Services U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Crockett Signal Office of Noise Control San Francisco Bay District 885 Loring Avenue 2151 Berkeley Way 211 Main Street Crockett, California 94525 Berkeley, California 94704 San Francisco, California 94105 ATTN: Dan A. Robertson State Regional Water Quality U.S. Environmental Protection FR & Associates, Inc. Control Board, S.F. Region Agency - Region IX 124 Parker Avenue 2101 Webster St., Suite #500 215 Fremont Street Rodeo, California 94572 Oakland, California 94612 San Francisco, California 94105 Attn: Bill Riddle State Air Resources Board Central Labor Council of Contra Elan Rosenquist 2020 L Street Costa County Adams & Broadwell Sacramento, California 95518 525 Green Street 1875 So.Grant Street #600 ATTN: Barbara Fry Martinez, California 94553 San Mateo, California 94402 East Bay Regional Park District Save San Francisco Bay Assoc.. Pamela Railsback P. 0. Box 5381 1736 Franklin Street, 3'd Flr. 1127 Viewpointe Boulevard 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, .California 94612 Rodeo, California 94802 Oakland, California 94605-0381 ATM: William Siri ATTN: Tom Lindenmeyer Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection Sierra Club -S.F. Bay Chapter David R. Claeys District 5237 College Avenue P. 0. Box 1177 1680 Refugio Valley Road Oakland, California 94618 Kenwood, California 95452 Hercules, California 94547 ATTN: Alan Biagi National Audubon Society Crockett Chamber of Commerca Leland Graves Mt. Diablo Chapter P. 0. Box 191 224 - 4th Street P. 0. Box 53 Crockett, California 94525 Rodeo, California 94572 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94596 Contra Costa Building & Constr. Rodeo Chamber of Commerce Adams & Broadwell Trades Council P. 0. Box 548 P. 0. Box 1864 935 Alhambra Avenue #2 Rodeo, California 94572 South San Francisco, Calif.94 Martinez, California 94553 Attn: Shirley Moirano Attn: Marc D. Joseph ATTN: Greg Feere Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt.Dist. L P. Che Jr. Chevron Reserac . & Tech. 939 Ellis Street 936 Elm Drive 100 Chevron Way San Francisco, California 94109 Rodeo, California 94572 Richmond, California 94802 ATTN: Joe Steinberger ATTN: Wagar Qureshi USDA Soil Conservation Service Irene Pitjoan 5552 Clayton Road 23 Garretson Avenue Concord, California 94521 Rodeo, California 94572 ATTN: Larry Soenen U.S.Fish & Wildlife The Cerici Family Sacramento Field Office 1514 .Flora Street Division of Ecologial Srvs (E.S) Crockett, California 94525 2800 Cottage Way, Rm #E-1803 Sacramento, California 95825 r Resolution No. 46-1994 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UNOCAL CORPORATION'S "REFORMULATED GASOLINE PROJECT". WHEREAS, on June 9, 1993, UNOCAL CORPORATION (Applicant & Owner), .submitted to the Community Development Department, a request for a land use permit for a proposed reformulated gasoline project which would involve the construction and operation of two new refinery components (a hydrogen plant and a steam boiler plant), the modification of three (3) existing units (the Pentane Handling/Benzene Saturation unit), the Gasoline Blender and the Steam/Power Plant), a maximum of 10 new tanks ranging in capacity from 40,000 to 220,000 barrels, additional pipelines, additional drain systems and changes to the utility systems to' support project needs for water, electricity, natural gas and hydrogen; and WHEREAS, on December 9, 1993, the County Community Development Department issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP), registered the NOP with the State Clearinghouse, and sent notices by mail to potential Responsible Agencies and interested parties, thereby initiating a 30-day period which terminated on January 10, 1994 and included a public Scoping Session on December 29, 1993; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and issued on June 23, 1994, and a CEQA notice of completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse, enacting a 45-day comment period; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 1994, the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on the Daft EIR, at which time, all who wished to present testimony were heard; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing to oral testimony and confirmed July 18, 1994, as the deadline to receive written testimony on the adequacy and completeness of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 1994, a Response To Comments Document was prepared and distributed to commenting and responsible agencies and to all those who submitted written or oral testimony on the adequacy of the Draft EIR; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator finds: 1 . That the Final Environmental Impact Report for UNOCAL Corporation's proposed Reformulated Gasoline Project, consisting of the June 1994 Draft EIR and the September 1994 Response to Comments Document -1- Resolution No. 46-1994 was prepared, processed and completed in accordance with State and County CEQA . Guidelines and with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, on October 4, 1994; after notice was lawfully given, a public hearing was conducted before the County Planning Commission whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, two additional hearings were conducted before the County Planning Commission on October 18, 1994 and November 15, 1994, whereat all persons interested might appear and be heard; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that on November 15, 1994, the County Planning Commission APPROVED Land Use Permit #2038-94 with conditions of approval proposed by staff and with the addition of four new conditions addressing a Good Neighbor Agreement, fenceline monitoring and funding for the Cummings Skyway Extension; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this decision are as follows: 1 .- The land use permit is consistent with the County General Plan; 2. The land use permit as conditioned with the findings established in County Ordinance Code Section 26-2.2008; 3. The land use permit would allow the construction of the project whose objective is to meet the 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments which are designed to improve air quality. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and Secretary of this Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California. The instruction by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was given by motion of the Commission on Tuesday, November 15, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Clark, Accornero, Wong, Woo, Straus. NOES: Commissioners - Carmen Gadd i s. ABSENT: Commissioners - Marvin J. Terrell . -2- Resolution No. 46-1994 ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. I, Marvin J. Terrell, Chairman of the Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called and held in accordance with the law on Tuesday, November 29, 1994, and that this resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: Commissioners - Gaddis, Straus, Wong, Woo, Clark, Terrell . NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - Emil Accornero. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. Chairman of the Planning Commission, Contra Costa County, State of California. ATTEST: Secre r of he PVCoagSt�atemof Comission of the Cou ontra California. -3- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PERMIT #2038-93 (UNOCAL CORPORATION REFORMULATED GASOLINE PROJECT) GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. Development shall be based on the following documents except as modified by the conditions herein: A. "Land Use Permit Application" dated received by-the County Community Development Department on June 9, 1993. B. Submittals,completing and/or clarifying the land use permit application dated September 14, 1993, October 29, 1993, and December 20, 1993. C. Project development and operation as further described in the Final EIR. 2. Prior to the commencement of grading or construction, the applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval a Site Development Plan. The Plan shall: A. Identify the phasing of the project construction on a quarterly basis. The purpose of this condition is to provide an updated construction schedule which identifies for each major project component, the expected start and completion dates for site preparation and for construction. B. Identify the schedule for submitting the Hazard and Operability Studies. C. Identify the new location for Tank 109 which shall be adjacent to Tank 112. D. Eliminate the Steam Boiler Plant which is not approved. 3. An updated copy of the approved Site Development Plan (refer to Condition 2 A/B) shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator every six months during the duration of the construction period. 4. The applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval, an annual report detailing the facility's compliance with the conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The report shall include supporting information from other regulatory agencies as applicable. For each mitigation measure, the report shall identify the compliance with the measure, the procedures or standards used to judge the compliance as applicable, times and dates of the monitoring and whether further action is required. A copy of the report shall be submitted to the Crockett Improve- ment Association, the Rodeo Municipal Advisory Council, and the Facility Community P Advisory a anti tie Rodeo ) ercutes Fiterotecttfln lstrtct for their review and ...... ... ...... ...................................................................... comment prior to submittal to the Zoning Administrator. NOTE: "MM"refers to the Mitigation Measure in the Final E/R. "RMAC"refers to conditions agreed upon by the Rodeo Municipal Advisory Council and the applicant. 2 5. The Zoning Administrator shall hold a public hearing at a frequency of once each year during the first three years and every three years thereafter to review the applicant's compliance with the land use permit conditions herein. The applicant shall submit a letter to the Zoning Administrator requesting that a hearing be held, and shall pay a fee to cover the hearing costs. GEOLOGY: SLOPE STABILITY AND EROSION CONTROL: 6. At least twenty days prior to the issuance of grading permits or the commencement of construction (including excavation) on any site which involves cut/fill slopes, the applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval a soils and slope stability report. The report shall be prepared by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or a Geotechnical Engineer. The report shall analyze the slope stability for specific sites and shall formulate design criteria and recommendations for cut and fill slopes. The report shall: A. Provide detailed plans showing elevations, locations, extent, and slope of all proposed grading. All proposed project facilities, retaining walls, drainage systems, and erosion protection devices shall also be shown. B. Identify the volume of material to be excavated and/or filled. C. Evaluate the suitability of the earth materials for construction of stable embankments and excavation slopes. The report shall contain recommenda- tions which conform with California Uniform Building Code and Contra Costa County requirements regarding construction procedures to obtain required slope stability. (MM 5-1(b) and 5-2) 7. Per Chapter 716-8 of the Contra Costa County Building Regulations, cuts shall not be steeper in slope than two horizontal to one vertical unless a site-specific engineering geology report is completed certifying that a cut at a steeper slope will be stable. Compacted fill slopes shall not be steeper than two horizontal to one vertical. (MM 5- 1(a)) 8. During grading operations, a registered geotechnical engineer shall be on the site to (MM 5-1(c): A. Observe that the recommended slope stability designs are correctly implement- ed; B. Identify areas of potential instability and observe slope repairs, as necessary; and C. Perform compaction testing of fill materials. 9. At least 20 days prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. The plan shall identify interim measures to prevent erosion and sedimentation during project construction. The measures shall include but not be limited to the following (MM 5-3): A. Grading to minimize areas of exposed, erodible material, and to avoid concentration of rapidly-flowing run-off in unprotected, erodible areas; B. Temporary culverts and swales; C. Mulch and jute netting blankets on exposed slopes; D. Hydroseeding; E. Sediment traps and/or silt fences designed and maintained to fulfill their function; and F. A maintenance schedule and provision for monitoring the effectiveness of erosion control measures over the winter rainy season. 10. The plan shall also identify measures to prevent long-term erosion and sedimentation, including but not limited to the following: A. Construction of drainage ditches on cut and fill slopes and integration of the ditches with the existing or planned storm sewer system; B. Erosion control measures, such as erosion control fabric, vegetation, or retaining walls, should be used on open cut and fill slopes; and C. Periodic inspection and maintenance, as necessary, of cut and fill slopes and sedimentation control facilities during the winter rainy season. 11. Fill used during the construction of the Reformulated Gasoline Project should be properly designed with keyways and subsurface drainage, and adequately compacted (i.e., minimum 90 percent relative compaction as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTMP) D1557 to.significantly reduce natural fill settlement). (MM 5-5(d)) GEOLOGY: SEISMIC SAFETY: 12. At least 20 days prior to the issuance of grading permits or the commencement of construction, the applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval a seismic safety report prepared by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or a Geotechnical Engineer. The report shall detail compliance with the following requirements: 4 A. Site speeifie seismie design eFiteFia and Feeemmendatiens, based en Site be identified. :ni`::> .ralu�:ts><��is � :: ............ ......... •. ..•.i}}}i}:4:•i}}}}/'J7::::.i}i�ii}iiMiiii':i:ti?:}:•r1:•:iiii:is??jj•'j: tom }♦ {�}{j [[7 '��,'}��y� �} (,�] (I�y� :: ::•`R:SIS•TO : .NF::1y���.` t•1V '�'•':::::::::::::::::::::iiv:iiiiii'{:..;:;iv;i ijii::::::::::::::vi:i:;:iiii:::::C:i:::::i::i<:i::jvi:i:{::vii::i•:.......:•:ii•:O:??i•'ii•S:???{iiGiiiiiG.y:!4:iiiii!iiii:ii?•:iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii...... ii•:ii.i:{.:{::.:L::::::vv..:iLiiL4iTirii #�f�a�nr� orat� �e�uatfan� (MM 5-5(a)) B. level. (MM 5-5(b)) This condition has been incorporated in Condition #N.A. B. , ' radn`i"ar3tes `irf» 1#tr; :.;iii::.:;i;::9;i:i:.ii:.i;:.::;i:iii:.iii:;:.;: ; ir%1 `the California Uniform Building Code and Contra Costa County Code requirements, shall be used to reduce the secondary effects of ground shaking on structures and infrastructures. (MM 5-5(c)) C. liquefaet+en, lateFal-spFeading; IUreh-er-aekirtg, and diffeFential✓settlement.-Peer a desiW bevel ir3�rest�g.at.sr shall evaluate n' is<i iii ::f :€:> ' : :: I: :: 3 ... # u.::fat: : .::s.::: :.: �# ..13:�n:.:: i.:: ..;i,iii.i..i.i�uscept��e t quefacttvr�,lateral spreading,(arch crpi~kir�g ar d�ffererttial .;.'.;:.i:.::.:;:'.:.....:::: .....t..:.::.::.:................':'.... sElittefShll> eub eft:>l €:: rad:: :( !v#3fT1k3ilt:t 'C: .:. .Si<:i'ih. ..>s`.:.... e�ft►: emea��rr�:s (MM 5-5(c)) ;;..:.. .... ... ..:..::.. :.::.::. ..:.....:..,.. .,.....:..::;,.....:.i:..:.... :.. <:€: 'h ;:€:re : r ::::;s at(;: roarirfe-: ettlerx�ent;:esti�ates foc f4cFr3dations as::�e(I: >far ................ p.........:..........:....1 .......::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:: :::.::::::.:::.:::::::::.:::.::::::::.:::::::::.:::.: :.::::::::::::................................................................................................................................................................................................ IJ+Avgr�Qtft artd urierirtt ut�l�tleStruturatdastr�deet/fi] indar;:: sh ;::be::::qua( ate < fl<::deterrrine<:r <::s ecial>:::€odati:ori::::s:.:sterras:<:ate p ::::::::::::Y.::::::::::::::.::::::::::. ...................................................................................................................................................... E. IiEluefaetien petent+al--ef the Sa teddepesits ideflti;;do� v+e'rnity-e fieTank 11-A-site-by-lAFee dW aTa vrTa evrnsvrtvnry r-ra�Tshall n-vim evaluated and ete speei#+e-deesPFe; This requirements is incorporated in Condition #12.C. 5 13. Final design of the proposed improvements shall be ::.:i.. i': i:::::::isisli:ijii::'yi"v%:::iy:::::<i:::1::ii oster3 : rl X.. :Wap ? ftp € (MM 5-5(f)) 14. Prior to the issuance of building permits or the commencement of construction for any structures (e.g., tanks, hydrogen plant), the applicant shall submit evidence that the design of the structure has been reviewed by and conforms with the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer/engineering geologist and the structural engineer The ::>::>::>::>:....................................... rd< e <71 )low) >:rqu)rezren : ......:::;<:>:<:>:::1 ac errt:::: et rr .:c(e .i n:::s( I.<::: e::::use >::n:::; onstr cfi.ori;:.fo..Aesistan. . :::t ................ : ;>::> ::::::.;:. n. . . .... .��:! ..:.: ...... :::::::::.::::::::::::.. facrtiti>as< ha)i c far.:m:<t4 alifornua:::) nifairl......�idin <;C Segs }c2orte>: g O fia�Y OO a d iw`Qn�ra �vst� G�urtty �Lii�d1i�� �0�t�l�fi €��f ��StG�.7').�,.,,,�fV(IVi Yi:ii:i::::}_:i'i: ;!;................... i".:i.....: : ....... .i!i:::i::: :::.i::::::::::i'::iiii: :i:':Liiii:t.:i5i: 'v:<:j•v iii:i>i'"!i5i5i.?"::::::::':?titi4i: a(sersrr�te:-rens arrteartw: :a ::: :>eflns :: r >: .. . ., d .on.:::::::::.:.:.::::::::::......:....... .::::::....................ter...:a.................... .r.. tz...:dsi. r*:cGiLfa: [tb >:::::<::>:>:::>::: > ::::> < :::::::>:>:: i:::::>:<::::::_>:< ....:........::r : te (tfth : .t elw:as: �s ::.. :( s >: <:• f�. :r :::::::................ :..)r1.::::.i.::::::::::::::::.......... ::....d.:::,.::::.:.::.:t................ Ct.:r :;:•.::::.:i_.iiii.!iv..,i.::. :i'. ::.:::.i..i'..;:...i..::.i: :':.i.:.•i•t:'.?':.i .::.i'::.i::.i.:::::.......:..^: :v.::.:..::.i'::.i:.: •.J}•::...:..':..:'::..::::::.::..:::.i.::....t" :':::::.4:: dations::: t < :)vala#orr�aa:::iCerttf�:ed::: n irleet#n :>: .el:o rst:: r:< eate. hrica€:l=ri �:ner ::::::::.9.::.:::::::.::. :: .:::::..:.9.:::.:::....: #3:> f� tJ1L!#3::<Wt8>CIiCrCfkr #QtQt: tt# t..i.. :fid `>..:� f is :::::::: : @.�.►.,5..: .:. AIR QUALITY: - 15. The applicant shall implement the duct-burner option for increased steam production to reduce project emissions of nitrogen oxides. The proposed steam boiler plant is not approved. (MM 8-4) 16. Unocal shall conduct source tests of the hydrogen plant heater and each of the steam turbines to confirm the annual average Precursor Organic Compound (POC) emission increases and shall report the results to the County Zoning Administrator within ,90 days of achieving normal operation. These increases plus the projected increases of all other sources of POC listed on Table 8-15 of the Final EIR shall be considered the actual increase in volatile organic compounds due to the proposed project. If this actual increase equals or exceeds 27 tons per year, then Unocal shall take one of the following actions by March 1, 1996 to reduce volatile organic compounds in the Bay Area air basin by an amount that exceeds the difference between the actual emissions and 27 tons per year. A. Provide contemporaneous offsets, either on-site or off-site. B. Accept a valve leak definition to 100 parts per million of volatile organic compounds for all valves at the Unocal San Francisco Refinery subject to BAAQMD Regulation 8-18, effective March 1, 1996. - 6 Unocal may elect to implement either of the above actions without a source test, using the projected increase in volatile organic compounds as finally approved by the BAAQMD to be the actual increase. In this case, a source test will not be required. Within 90 days of achieving normal operation, Unocal must present analysis to the County Zoning Administrator indicating (1)the amount of reduction needed, (2) which option has been chosen, and (3) how the chosen option will reduce the emissions to below 27 tons per year. (MM 8-3) 17. During construction, the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions. (MM 8-1(b)): A. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered and shall maintain at least six inches of freeboard (i.e., minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). B. Water active sites at least twice daily. Active sites shall be watered more often if necessary during excessively hot or windy conditions to avoid any impact to adjacent properties. C. Water sites or suspend grading and/or excavating activities when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. D. Water or apply approved chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all unpaved parking or staging areas,to unpaved road surfaces and to inactive construction areas. E. Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. F. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved soil binders, according to manufacturers' specifications to exposed stock piles, (i.e., gravel, sand, dirt). G. Establish a wheel washing station at the construction site exit(s) to prevent entrained dust from leaving the site. H.. Traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces shall be maintained at 15 mph or less. The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement to comply with one or more of the above measures upon the finding that the applicant has submitted satisfactory evidence that compliance is not feasible because of associated safety hazards. 18. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or the construction of project elements (e.g., hydrogen plant, tanks), the applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval evidence that construction access roads have been paved at least 100 feet on the site from the off-site road. (MM 8-1(b) (c)) 7 19. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or the construction of project elements (e.g., hydrogen plant, tanks), the applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval evidence that construction roads that may have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily trips for all vehicles have been paved. The Zoning Administrator may allow the paving of construction roads to occur at a later time within the construction period based on adequate evidence and monitoring that construction road use shall not exceed the thresholds specified in this condition prior to the completion of the required paving. (MM 8-1(b) (b)) 20. During construction, the applicant shall implement all of the following measures to reduce construction equipment combustion by-product emissions (volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide and carbon monoxide). (MM 8-1(c)). A. Prevent trucks from idling longer than two minutes to the extent feasible. B. Use electricity from power plants (e.g., power poles) rather than temporary diesel or gasoline generators to the extent feasible. C. Use methanol or natural gas on-site mobile equipment instead of diesel. Use propane or butane-powered on-site mobile equipment instead of gasoline to the extent feasible. D. Use low sulfur fuel (0.05% sulfur content) in diesel powered construction equipment. E. Use low emission on-site mobile equipment: On-road diesel engines, to the extent available. Turbochargers and aftercoolers, to the extent available. Maximum fuel injection timing retard adjustment for equipment without on-road diesel engines. - Electric versions of equipment, to the extent available. 21. Prior to the issuance of building permits or the commencement of construction, the applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that all contracts with companies involved in the construction of the project include the requirement that daily average vehicle ridership equal not less than 1.15 (BAAQMD goal for Contra Costa County, 1994). The average daily ridership shall be calculated based upon the definition for construction in BAAQMD Regulation 13, Rule 1. To the extent that the average vehicle ridership cannot be achieved, the applicant may propose alternative measurable pollution reducing alternatives for implementation. In the event that local commute rules also apply, the most stringent rules shall be followed. (MM 8-1(a)) 8 WATER QUALITY: 22. Prior to grading and/or excavation at any site, Unocal shall submit to the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval, a Soils Management Plan which has been approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The plan shall describe how non-hazardous, contaminated soil and groundwater will be handled during the construction phase of the Reformulated Gasoline Project. In addition, Unocal shall sample and analyze soil during the excavation and grading process. Should materials not typical of Unocal's soils analysis be encountered, Unocal shall halt excavation and dewatering operations and conduct an investigation per California EPA requirements. Soils shall be managed per the approved soils management plan unless the soils analysis indicates that the material is a hazardous waste, in which case it will be managed according to the California EPA requirements. (MM 6-3) 23. Unocal shall implement their plan to use 100% non-potable water for tank testing, which reduces the construction water demand from 60 - 70 gpm to 5 gpm. Prior to individual tank testing, the applicant shall inform the County Zoning Administrator which of the following measure(s) will be used: A. Use of salt water for equipment testing where available. B. Use of effluent water for equipment testing where available. C. Reuse of test water between tank tests. D. Recycling of test water for cooling tower make-up water. (MM 13-1) Unocal shall submit to the Zoning Administrator a quarterly report during the construction phase of the project that details whether the applicant has achieved the projected 5 gpm use rate. If the rate has not been achieved, the applicant shall propose additional measures designed to ensure that the specified rate is achieved. All additional measures approved by the Zoning Administrator shall be implemented. Prior to the operation of new or modified units, the applicant shall supply evidence to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that the program to expand the existing condensate collection system, and to recycle hydrogen plant effluent water for boiler feedwater use has been implemented. (MM 13-2) RISK OF UPSET: 24. Prior to the start-up of any project element, the applicant shall submit to the County Health Services Department for review and the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval the management process for internal and external notification and handlingof any potential upset conditions. rvcilej ':'tthi ........ ... .P .................. P...... ... ...... ......... .......:;::.;::.;;:.;:.;:.;;;:.:;::.;:.;:.;:.:;;:.;;:.;:. ;;;:.;;:.;:.;:.;:.:;.:;.;:.;:.;:.;:.;: :.;:.;:.::.;:.;:.;;:.;:.;; iiiiii'':iii:::•Y::a<::.::::::.�:: :...:i:: :'::::.::::.v:::.::::::::.:.�.:�:....:::::::...::::: :v::::v::v::v:::::::::..�:::::::................::: su mitts:::tt�:>the:::f;ode<s-� rcufes::Ir3re::: r.:vtecttt�n:::O str cC:;liar.::;:t# a r:>reu ew:sh :::c:or r ertt::: IX" ::::;:'�:;:.;:.;..:::;:.: :<:.;;;:..... ................................................... For the purposes of this condition, an upset' condition means any exception to the normal operation of the refinery that has the possibility of creating an on-site health hazard, of being noticeable off-site, or of creating a health hazard off-site. 9 25. The approved management notification process and its effectiveness in handling actual upset conditions shall be reviewed by the County Health Services Department and reviewed and approved by the County Zoning Administrator every six months for the first two years, and once every year thereafter. At least 30 days prior to the annual review the applicant shall submit any requested information necessary for this review. The results of this review, as well as any updated information, shall be included in the applicant's annual report specified in Condition #4 herein. This information shall also be reviewed as part of the public hearing held by the Zoning Administrator to review the applicant's compliance with these Conditions of Approval as specified in Condition #5 herein. The applicant shall pay a fee to the County Health Services Department to cover the Department's staff costs required to review submittals for this condition. 26. Prior to the operation of any project element, the applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that the Emergency Response Plan has been updated to adequately address the new project element. 27. At least 60 days prior to the start-up of any element of the proposed project, a Hazard and Operability Study with an accident consequence analysis shall be completed and submkteei rrkad s jafzi '`'tf e<a : i cant::#flc::rev: >: : the Count Health Services ::......:::: ....t.... :.... : . the County Zoning Department r .Administrator. .—The study shall use methods established by the American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 750 and significance criteria identified in the project Final EIR. If the Hazard and Operability Study finds significant impacts,the study shall include proposed engineering or operational controls to reduce the probability or severity of significant t accidenis d addt�vnal requ3remsnts resutlr3grorr� the �avl€ew. 28. Prior to start-up, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County Health Services Department, that the measures detailed in the approved Hazard and Operability studies have been implemented. 29. After the project is in operation, but prior to the commencement of any construction to modify any portion of the Reformulated Gasoline Project which has the potential to generate an off-site hazard from process upset, the applicant shall provide written notice to the County Health Services Department and to the County Zoning Administrator and obtain a determination as to whether the change requires a new .................................... Hazard and Operability Study with an accident consequence analysis. ' Ijit haj:>: .rev�:dax:a::>,eQ ef:::thIs:<:ce uest:::to:> i ::# e. Fercc�les:::Fire:::Ptrtectrort:t3astr�ot: ::::.:: :.:....................................................................................................:........................:.......................................................................................... 30. Prior to the operation of any project components which require amendment of the Risk Management and Prevention Plan (RMPP), the applicant shall submit to the County .......................... Health Services Department for review and acceptance the revised RMPP. vroit >dPctment Shall aise Sthrrtted:fir:: h .Rc�deokprPulS ��s: eot� ttiStr�C b >: :. 3eapplant: i i 10 31. Prior to the start-up for each project element which involves the use of hazardous j materials,the applicant shall update the Hazardous Materials Business Plan on file with the County Health Services Department. 32. Unocal shall comply with the applicable requirements of Cal-OSHA to protect employee health and safety. 33. In the event of a spill, Unocal shall immediately implement its existing Oil Spill Contingency/Response Plan as described in the Facility Response Plan for the San Francisco Refinery. (MM 6-8) i 34. The applicant shall, upon the request of the County, participate with the County and with other industrial businesses in establishing an emergency medical response van which may be used during hazardous materials incidents. The participation may include providing financial assistance. 35. Prior to the operation of any project component, the applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval evidence that the Emergency Notification Plan has been amended to provide notification to the schools in Rodeo and Crockett of releases that may affect them. (RMAC) i. 36. Prior to June, 1995,the applicant shall conduct two shelter-in-place workshops which shall be open to all local residents at no cost. The applicant shall provide shelter-in- place kits to all attendees. (RMAC) The materials presented shall be subject to the j review and approval of the County Health Services Department. 37. Unocal shall work with any Rodeo licensed day care who requests notification and participation in the "Community Warning System." Unocal shall provide any required access material and installation (RMAC) 38. Unocal shall continue its participation in the Refinery/Petrochemical mutual aid system. (RMAC) it CONSTRUCTION PERIOD NOISE AND LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS: 39. Noise generating construction activities (e.g., demolition, grading) shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday, and shall be prohibited on State and Federal holidays. Concrete pours begun during the allowed j construction period may continue until completion. The unloading of equipment is 1 allowed outside of the specified construction period. However, the Zoning Adminis- trator may, after receipt of complaints from neighboring property owners, restrict unloading activities to 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday. Noise generating construction activities may be allowed on Sundays following written approval by the Zoning Administrator. If the Zoning Administrator allows noise construction activities to occur on a Sunday, the applicant shall notice property owners within 500 feet of the boundary of the construction site. j 11 40. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 500 feet of the exterior boundary of the refinery notice that construction work will commence. Notice shall also be given to the Rodeo MAC, the Crockett Improvement Association, and the facility Community Advisory Panel. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to .indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of the individual responsible for noise and litter control shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be reissued with each phase of major grading or construction activity. 41. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are. in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible. . 42. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or applicable ordinances shall require an immediate work stoppage. Construction work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been posted. 43. Flood or area lighting needed for construction activities shall be placed and directed so as to not disturb adjacent residential uses and passing motorists. (MM 15-1) OPERATIONAL NOISE REQUIREMENTS: 44. When designing the Reformulated Gasoline Project, Unocal shall meet the following performance standard for new or modified equipment and piping system: Specification SP-100-1 will limit the A-weighted noise level to 85 dBA at specified locations close to the various pieces of equipment. The noise control specifications, included as Appendix 10B of the Final EIR for the Unocal Reformulated Gasoline project, shall be incorporated into contract documents. (MM 10-4) 45. Prior to the issuance of building permits or the commencement of construction for any element of the project which would generate noise, Unocal shall submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval detailed noise level calculations delineating (1) the noise control treatments included in the design, and (2) the calculated noise levels I demonstrating compliance with the performance limit, Specification SP-100-1. This analysis shall be performed by an individual who is a registered engineer or a member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering and who has at least five years experience in noise control engineering. (MM 10-4(b)) i . 12 46. Prior to the operation of new or modified operating units, the applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval, a noise monitoring plan. The plan shall specify noise monitoring procedures and standards to certify that the Reformu- lated Gasoline Project will meet the noise performance standard (SP-100-1). The program must include monitoring the equipment at least once each year for the first three years after the project is fully operational. It must also include a procedure for handling remedial noise control, if required. (MM 10-4(c)) GENERAL TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS: 47. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of approval of this permit. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the Transportation Engineering Division. This development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the County Code. The following requirements must conform with Division 914: A. DFEIinege, s� Tb a::a Int:sha :: .r.::c�v�de:>drar :>trdfatitrratad :: .............:.::.::::::::::::.::::::::t :..:::.:_::::::::::::.::::::::::. .:::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::.:::::::..::::::::::::::::::::. r rr-.0..—Ma x1stEn ;r ads d Odra na $< td rer)s ............................................................ g ::: ...........9.:::::::::.::::::.::::::::::: B. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined in these conditions shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the plaR dated june, 1993si':':P.':*:*:*:':"1:4':':':':':'�:':':':""'����a�y sketch PIar1 dat+�� ra�����t9 by t(� CountVUirllar�Cs I�epartrnent fln CJeto ROADWAY/ACCESS REQUIREMENTS: 48. The applicant shall construct pavement widening along the frontage of San Pablo ;.:. Avenue nd :MMI: �Ic�G0:ta utitrt o)�5:»:fit Xoas(� '>5�#8efi outa�cte Q� >i#38>::> arra snt :: Y ::::::.:::::::: ril[: x The edge of pavement shall be 32 feet from the road centerline, except where additional pavement width is necessary to accommodate a left turn lane for the project entrance, if needed. The pavement width may be reduced along those sections of San Pablo Avenue where widening to a 32-foot half-width is infeasible (e.g., at utility bridge, where conflicts exist with existing fuel facilities,and:;natjeastaf3Jncca>'s :Y :r.:d '<yirhe#edea :>:»>T ta::.... f0) r: .>::: k to<«:PI r::::: <::<:::: v h :: ::::.:::: :.... . . atd ...........e ..........: irtt::<:Pub)i�WtriCs Ike artint> > kc# (iet< 2 (934..:.:has::: een;a: roar nd.:K :.: .:.....:....:.::: ::::::.::::::::::::::::.#�..:::::::::::...::.►::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::..:::::::::.:::::::::::::.::.:.:..P ......:..e :: ........ e ...................................................................... Sct �iB>�v Anti sketch plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, for review showing all public road improvements prior to starting work on the improvement plans. The sketch alignment 13 plan shall be to scale and show proposed edge of pavement lines, lane striping details, lighting, cross-sections, and any conflicts which may render the proposed pavement widening infeasible. The sketch plan shall extend a minimum of 150-feet beyond the limits of the proposed work. The sketch alignment plan shall also include sufficient information to show that adequate sight distance has been provided. If any existing facility which is in conflict with the proposed widening is replaced, the replacement facility shall be installed outside the widened right of way for San Pablo Avenue. 49. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road or drainage improvements. 50. Relinquish abutter's rights of access along San Pablo Avenue with the exception of the existing access driveways. 51. . "'N"I'"I'lill tree >ad:>shr::utb ::: an :sf�al(:; :::rr�irrra1>: rad{n V. :. :F! :::.::::::..::::::.: 9:::.:.:::::::::.....:.:::::::::::::.:::.::. 1t::::.:_:......:::::::..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.: :::::::::::::9::::::.:::::::P.::::.::::: :r::ii`• ;<::';........................: :: ''.::....:::::.:........:::':.::;:: ;R;Y;i:;::;:t;:::t;%::::v,:2«t:::;:::::::::::::::::::;:;;:::;;:::i?;::••:Yi::;•:.;,::+.::::%:::::::::::'::::: ::::';:is::::::i:R;}:;:i:,;:?;:.'`::`+;; fC :>: ;;fhb.:. r1.:. 31:t::AvBitu�::: GS :;<:: ::> :t� � a ::::# .#�::>d�Sl :>S set::: 52. Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, toe saff'c....::... right of .............::. way Avenue. - sfl overhea.::.;::.......::.;tY Pees anti wires. ............ 53. As mitigation for the increase in construction truck traffic generated by this project and the resulting additional pavement deterioration, Unocal shall contribute the equivalent cost of the County's chip seal overlay project for that portion of San Pablo Avenue within 1,500 feet on either side of the Unocal Main Gate. This contribution shall be placed in a Road Improvement Fee Trust (Fund No. 819200-0800) designated for the chip seal project on San Pablo Avenue. (MM 12-5) 54. To mitigate the project's exacerbation of the need for base failure and pothole repairs due to construction truck traffic, the county shall perform visual inspections of the conditions of San Pablo Avenue along the Unocal frontage before and after the construction. Unocal shall be responsible for the cost of any pavement repair along its frontage which is necessary, based on the visual inspections, to restore the pavement to its pre-construction conditions. (MM-12-5) 14 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: 55. Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires that all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property shall be conveyed, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility,to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. 56. Storm drainage facilities required by the GFdinanee Gede shall be designed and constructed in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. 57. The applicant shall install within a dedicated drainage easement any portion of the drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets. CONSTRUCTION PARKING CONTROLS: 58. Unocal shall coordinate with the Traffic Division of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department to arrange for the following temporary modifications to San Pablo Avenue and the parking lot entrances, which shall remain in place for the duration of project construction (MM 12-4(a)): A. Remove double yellow line striping on the San Pablo Avenue median at the driveways into Lot 2/3 and the West Lot. The length of removed striping section should extend to the width of the driveways. The break in striping will make the lot entrances more noticeable. B. Post signs identifying lot names at the lot entrances on San Pablo Avenue. C. Upon the completion of construction, the signs shall be removed and the median striping replaced. 59. Unocal shall conduct a quarterly monitoring program to assess the safety of traffic operations at Lot 2/3, the West Lot and the Main Lot (via Gate 28). The program shall begin one month after the start of construction. A registered traffic engineer shall observe traffic operations at the lot entry/exit points during the morning and afternoon construction peak hours. The program shall observe at least one period when a turnaround coincides with project construction, should such a situation occur. Parked vehicle counts will also be taken as part of each monitoring activity. The purpose of the monitoring will be to ensure that unsafe movements are not being made, and that significant conflicts with vehicles from adjacent facilities (for example the Main signal and California Street) do no occur. Criteria that should be incorporated into the monitoring assessment include (MM 12-4(b)): A. Number of vehicles choosing unsafe gaps when turning into and out of the parking lots (as evidenced by through vehicles needing to brake excessively, and/or outbound vehicles accelerating excessively). 15 B. Number of vehicle maneuvers resulting in undesirable proximity to bicyclists or pedestrians. C. Instances of through vehicles having difficulty maneuvering to an outside lane to avoid vehicle queues in the inside lane (due to sight distance problems, speeding or excessive queue lengths). D. Instances of inside lane queue lengths interfering with adjacent intersection operation (i.e., blocking traffic at the main gate intersection). 60. If the County Public Works Department concludes that the monitoring assessment shows a need for greater control of the parking lot entrances, Unocal shall implement manual traffic control at the lot entrances. The manual traffic control shall remain in effect until the work force decreases to a level that can be accommodate in the Unocal-Bechtel Alliance Lot. OTHER REQUIREMENTS: 61. The applicant shall comply with the following archaeological resource requirements (MM 17-1): A. If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts, human burials, or the like are encountered during grading, trenching or other on-site earthwork or construction operations, such activity shall cease within 30 yards of the find, the Community Development Department shall be notified within 24-hours and a qualified archaeologist contacted and retained for further recommendations. A qualified archaeologist is one who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA). Significant cultural materials include, but are not limited to, aboriginal human remains, chipped stone, groundstone, shell and bone artifacts, concentrations of fire cracked rock, ash, charcoal, shell, bone, and historic features_ such as privies or building foundations. B. Appropriate mitigation of the cultural resources may include monitoring of further construction and/or systematic excavation of the resources. Any artifacts or samples collected as part of the initial discovery, monitoring or mitigation phases shall be properly conserved, catalogued, analyzed, evaluated and curated along with associated documentation in a professional manner consistent with current archaeological standards. 62. Laydown areas for project construction shall be as described in the Land Use Permit Application and the Final EIR. 16 63. Within six (6) months of the effective date of the land use permit, the applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval a Landscaping Plan for the refinery site. Prior to submittal to the County, the applicant shall submit the Plan to the Rodeo Municipal Advisory Council, the Crockett Improvement Association and the facility's Community Advisory Panel for review and comment. Any comments received from these three panels that were not incorporated into the proposed Landscape Plan, shall be summarized and submitted to the Zoning Administrator. The Landscaping Plan shall be prepared by a Certified Landscape Architect and shall improve the visual appearance of the refinery as viewed from the southern property boundary. The Landscaping Plan shall also include landscaping along San Pablo Avenue. Since landscaping will have limited success in screening the refinery components, the Plan shall focus on improving the visual character of the area to the extent feasible. The Landscaping Plan shall provide for:. A. The use of berms where possible to increase the height of the landscaping, thus providing greater screening. B. The use of evergreen trees. C. The planting of at least 350 15-gallon trees. D. Planting of a minimum of an additional 25 mature trees such as 20-24 foot olive trees. E. The use of vines and shrubs along San Pablo Avenue. F. A schedule, for Plan implementation. G. Ongoing maintenance designed to achieve a 90 to 95 percent success rate. H. The prompt replacement of vegetation that dies. The applicant shall pay particular attention to the view of the refinery from Hillcrest School. If the school district approves, the applicant shall include landscaping on the school district property which will provide greater screening of the refinery that could be achieved by limiting planting to the refinery property. 64. The applicant (including any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this land use permit application. The County will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. 17 65. The applicant shall be allowed to locate construction trailers on the refinery site during the 18-month construction period, and for an additional two months for construction preparation and take-down. 66. Unocal shall provide the Rodeo community with quarterly newsletters informing the community of project status and other relevant information. (RMAC) 67. Unocal shall appear before the Rodeo MAC on a quarterly basis during the project construction period to provide information. (RMAC) 68. Unocal shall deposit with the County Community Development Department $50,000 in January, 1995 and. $50,000 in January, 1996 for community improvement projects in Rodeo. The Rodeo MAC shall recommend to the Board of Supervisors projects to be funded. County administrative costs to assist the Rodeo MAC in making recommendations or managing and disbursing the fund shall not be recovered from these contributions. (RMAC) 69. Unocal shall advise the Rodeo MAC and other community organizations the MAC designates of future Unocal hiring plans as they develop. (RMAC) 70. Unocal shall work with the Contra Costa building trades to implement a hiring outreach program for apprentices from the Rodeo and Crockett communities. (RMAC) 71. Unocal shall cooperate with the Contra Costa County Health Services Department, Supervisor Jeff Smith's office, the Rodeo MAC and other advisory committees in the Rodeo/Crockett area to develop a community advisory program. (RMAC) 72. Unocal shall, to the extent feasible, divert demolition debris and construction waste from the waste stream. Prior to commencement of construction or demolition, the applicant shall meet with the County Community Development Department Resource Recovery staff to identify opportunities for the diversion of materials. 73. I.. ..:.;.3 ' aar> : wi.> t 3: r ..'V:e : l .. k..::.. .......:.....:..:..:.: rr>>: nditi:or�:: i: ...:..:.. i...:..:... J. i r i :48h:. h aa 0st, #. ,.. ::::cii,.::: f.:�.::�i�►,.;.;:' >�;��1�:>: 74. Unocal shall contribute $25,000 per year for the next three years to the John Swett Unified School District for specific student programs. Unocal would like to participate by providing input to the proposed programs. (RMAC) 18 75. Prior to the commencement of operations, Unocal shall contribute $378,000 for a facilities improvement project at Hillcrest School. The project will replace windows, weather stripping and doors and will be administered by the school district. (RMAC) 76. By August 1, 1995, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Commission for review and approval a fence line monitoring system for all fences. The system, if approved by the Commission, shall be in place and operating by November 1, 1995 and shall fully incorporate the best available technology. 77. There is an insufficiently mitigated environmental impact on the vehicle traffic in the Crockett and Rodeo area. In order to mitigate this impact, the applicant shall contribute $4,500,000 or an alternate amount determined by the Board of Supervisors for the construction of the Cummings Skyway extension. The applicant shall cooperate with Contra Costa County and other interested parties from the Rodeo and Crockett areas such as Wickland Oil Company. 78. Within three months of the effective date of the land use permit and every three months thereafter, the applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator, for review and approval, a written report outlining the progress of negotiations of a Good Neigh- bor Agreement. Good faith negotiations towards a Good Neighbor Agreement, as determined by the Zoning Administrator, shall be a condition of approval of.the land use permit. If the Zoning Administrator finds that the applicant has not facilitated good faith negotiations, the Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant of noncom- pliance with the conditions of approval and shall commence revocation proceedings for the land use permit. 79. If and when a Good Neighbor Agreement is negotiated, the applicant will submit the agreement to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. The Zoning Adminis- trator's approval will include, but not be limited to, consideration that appropriate public input has taken place in the negotiation of the agreement. The Zoning Adminis- trator's approval of the Good Neighbor Agreement shall remove Condition of Approval #78 from this land use permit. Nothing in condition of approval #78 or #79 shall require public hearings unless the Zoning Administrator institutes revocation proceedings. Nothing in Condition of Approval #78 and #79 shall prohibit written public comment from being submitted to the Zoning Administrator in his or her consideration of the periodic report of negotiations of the Good Neighbor Agreement. ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. 19 A. The applicant will be requested to comply with the requirements of the County Building Inspection Department. Building permits are required prior to the construction of most structures. B. The Building Inspection Department will require building permits and compliance with Title 24 requirements for construction trailers which are larger than single wide, or which are occupied by clerical, project management or engineering personnel. C. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Hercules/Rodeo/Crockett Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. D. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Ouality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay - Region 11 or Central Valley Region V). E. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish & Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box 47,Yountville, California 94599,of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish & Game Code. F. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. SPVIII/UnocaIMM.COK 9/29/94 10/13/94 11/3/94 11/15/94 - P/C Rev. (v) Agenda Item # 2 ,Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY OCTOBER 4 1994 - 7:30 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION UNOCAL CORPORATION (Applicant&Owner), County File #2038-93: The applicant requests approval of a land use permit for the Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project. If approved, the project would be located on approximately 25 acres of the 1,100 acre Unocal San Francisco Refinery, in the Rodeo area. This project also includes a 3.7 acre off-site parking area on two contiguous parcels (Parcel Nos. 357-202-025, -026) located south of and adjacent to the Unocal Refinery property between San Pablo Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. If approved, the project would . involve the construction of two new refinery components (a Hydrogen Plant and a Steam Boiler Plant) and the modification of three existing processing units (the Pentane Handling/Benzene Saturation equipment, the Gasoline Blender, and the Steam/Power Plant). In addition, the project includes the construction of a maximum of 10 new storage tanks, an increase in shipping in order to transport reformulated gasoline components between Unocal's San Francisco and Los Angeles Refineries, additional pipelines for transferring intermediate streams and feeds between processing units and tanks, additional drain systems needed to connect project components to the existing refinery process drain system, and changes to utility systems to support project needs for water, electricity, natural gas, and hydrogen. (H-I) (ZA: 0-7/8) (CT 3580.00) (Parcel Nos. 357-010-001, -008; 357-300-001, -005, -006; 357-310-001, -003; and 358-010-008). 11. RECOMMENDATION A. Accept the Zoning Administrator's recommendation regarding the certification of the Final EIR.* B. Certify that the Final EIR is adequate and complete, and that the Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. C. Receive public testimony on the land use permit application and close the public hearing. D. Approve the land use permit subject to the attached conditions. *The Zoning Administrator is scheduled to make a recommendation on the adequacy of the Final EIR at the October 3, 1994 Zoning Administrator hearing. 2 E. Direct staff to prepare the Statement of Findings and the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Commission's review and adoption. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Pian: Although most of the refinery is designated "Heavy industry" in the County General Plan, the 1,100 acre site also includes lands within the Open Space, Residential, Commercial-Recreation and Light Industry designa- tions (refer to Figure 1). The proposed project is almost exclusively located within the Heavy Industry designated lands. The exceptions are Parking Lots 2 and 3 and the off-site "West" parking lot which would be used for construc- tion worker parking. Parking Lots 2 and 3 are predominately within the Light Industry designation with the southern portion of the lots located within the Multiple Family-Medium Density designation. The "West" parking lot is designated Commercial-Recreation. The proposed project's consistency with the General Plan elements is discussed in the Final EIR (refer to Chapter 4 of the,Draft document). B. Zoning: The active area of the refinery is zoned Heavy Industrial (H-1). There are no height or lot size dimension requirements for this Zoning District. A portion of parking lots 2 and 3, which would be used for construction worker parking, is zoned commercial (C) and residential (R-6). The Zoning Map is attached as Figure 2. C. CEQA Status: The Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period on June 3, 1994. On July 6, 1994 the Zoning Administrator held. a public hearing in Rodeo to receive testimony on the adequacy of the document. A Response to Comments Document was prepared and distributed on September 23, 1994. The issue areas evaluated in the EIR include: ■ Land Use and Planning Policies. ■ Geology, Soils and Seismicity. ■ Hydrology and Water Quality. ■ Vegetation and Wildlife. ■ Air Quality and Public Health. ■ Risk of Upset. ■ Transportation and Public Services. ■ Visual Quality and Noise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 -9 a �. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t. . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . ... .: ........ ........... . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R2N'i;�'P ;.i;:'r::r:?Ir:;::N�4',?"; "�OR�C�ySD \ SL 03 ............ ......... ....... ... tr fn CL ....... .... 04 'm IN LL) o CIO T •\ 2 N A o a g a � b A � � m •$ •� 'a Y .[ ¢° O ££ ZN m n 3 J i i / d cc ol- - O€ f' : c 10 ;q O ,¢ a O01mcc cac: 12 Ln 1,01 c' , i l U ,. 'of •; O O \ o ge s J J �F 3 On October 3, 1994 the Zoning Administrator will make a recommendation regarding the. certification of the Final EIR. The Zoning Administrator's Resolution will be distributed to the Commission at the October 4, 1994 meeting. The EIR identified environmental impacts which would occur if the project would be implemented, and recommended mitigation measures which would reduce most of the impacts to a level of less than significant. All mitigation measures, with the exception of Measure 15-4, were included in the proposed Conditions of Approval. Measure 15-4 required landscaping to be added along the southern fenceline to screen Tank 109. The proposed conditions require Tank 109 to be relocated approximately 1,800 feet to the interior of the site from its proposed location (refer to Condition #2.C.). In addition, Condition #63 requires a much more extensive landscaping plan than that which is recommended by Mitigation Measure 15-4. A summary table which lists the impacts, the mitigation measures, and the corresponding Conditions of Approval is provided as Exhibit A. Additional discussion of environmental Impacts is provided in Section V of this report. D. Proiect Location and Vicinity: The Unocal San Francisco Refinery is located on an 1,100 acre site that consists of the active area of the refinery and undevel- oped areas. The 495 acre active area of the refinery is bordered by Wickland Oil to the north, vacant Unocal lands to the east, the Bayo Vista residential area . and the Hillcrest Elementary School to the south, and San Pablo Bay to the west. San Pablo Avenue and Interstate 80 run north-south through the San Francisco Refinery property. The surrounding land uses include residential, commercial and industrial (refer to Figure 3)• E. Site Description: The proposed project would be located within the 495 acre active portion of the refinery. An additional 615 acres of undeveloped land surrounds the south and east borders of the refinery. The fenced "active refinery area" houses process units, storage tanks, support facilities, an administrative building, and other refinery facilities and equipment. A wastewater treatment plant with holding ponds is located on the site. A receiving wharf and pipeline are located along the waterfront at Davis Point. The refinery surrounds property owned by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company that houses a power plant. Interstate 80 extends along the eastern edge of the main portion of the refinery, with a tank farm located along a hill to the east of the highway. Railroad tracks owned and operated by Southern Pacific Railroad run through the western portion of the refinery. These tracks are used by the refinery for rail shipments and deliveries. Y Y•: V- 1 0.' v E _ a f A - C N C t GG b Y 3 Q a' F Z O Z - t J w x Y •::'�:•:':..',:.�'.:'.:.,•�..•••:•��'.:.•.•..':...'.;'•���•:••':::::'.'�•::'��':��'..�i�:�.:•::�•:ti:�•ti••�•:ti:ti may.:•::_ W - J !v: :%41L• .+mow .`y'✓ :.�+. =?= <=4 4 d 'o a 3 d i0 - 1 J :Y •:Q• 'aa':'•:7:-`.:^75:x`•:::':;:�•\ }.. ' A -•2 i y.- 0 y. 0 l � - Q Cr 0 `O ! 0 i0� f O \" Q tin::,,•..,:,. O; O101 : `t cilI 7 S a. t 0 r�. J. 1 i 'O / s g F- o a gip•' Z w U G lip Z 4. N �E 1 �N E o 4 The proposed project would be located on approximately 25 acres distributed throughout the 495 acre active refinery area. Project components which would be located to the west of San Pablo Avenue are two tanks, the hydrogen plant, the steam boiler plant, and the modifications to the Steam/Power Plant. Seven tanks, the Pentane Removal/Benzene Saturation Unit and the Blender modifica- tions would be located in the area of the refinery which is bounded on the west by San Pablo Avenue and on the east by Interstate 80. Tank 1007 which is the largest tank 075 feet in diameter and 60 feet in height with a 220,000 barrel capacity) is the largest of the proposed tanks, and is the only project component located to the east of Interstate 80. A site plan which shows the location of new and modified project components is attached as Figure 4. IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Background: In response to the California Clean Air Act, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) established a phased system for requiring significant changes to the gasoline that is sold in California. Unocal has met the Phase I requirements which affected the Reid Vapor Pressure, the lead content and the phosphorous content of gasoline. Phase II requires that reformulated gasoline meet additional specifications (e.g., sulfur content, olefin content, benzene content, oxygen content, and Reid Vapor Pressure) by March 1, 1996. Reformulated gasoline is a fuel designed to produce cleaner combustion in motor vehicles than the gasoline presently available. Through cleaner combustion, improvements in air quality and public health can be realized. B. Proiect Elements: The proposed project involves the construction of two units, a maximum of 10 tanks, modification to three existing units, additional pipelines and drain systems, and modifications to the utility systems to support project needs for water, electricity, natural gas and hydrogen. 1 . Operating Units: The project involves the construction of two new units and the modification of three existing units. This list provides a brief description of the size and shape of the prominent structures. (NOTE: All sizes listed are approximate and reflect the maximum height). The purpose of each unit is summarized in Figure 5, and is described in detail in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR. Locations are identified on the site plan marked as Figure 4. ■ Hydrogen Plant: This unit would include a reformer furnace (80 feet in height), a stack (120 feet in height), and a drum 000 feet in height). The unit would be located on a 180' X 250' plot in the western portion of the refinery. ■ Steam Boiler Plant: The most prominent feature of this unit would be the 6'-8" diameter stack, which would stand about 105 feet in height. This unit was an alternative to increasing the n h n ^ $ I $ � � m / 1* •-► \ p�p - M C7 C �,cf0 / y IM H _O `\ ;„ o 'ocr I ca i - -►-� ♦- o, ► C to m Ile rCD c a O O 71 a o Q 8 9� a ' t_ {1 O e ♦ CD , Fov wccl _ 10 C L:. ` N ° z CL. E Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Fi�uRE 5 RELATIONSHIP OF PROJECT COMPONENTS TO PROJECT OBJECTIVES . sed,.Com <:;: Ob ective ar.Staadard Adiressetl................ _._. :.: :... .... Po P°... :.... 1 Pentane Removal/Benzene Saturation Remove isopentane to meet Reid Vapor • Reformate Splitter (new) Pressure requirements, saturate benzene, and • Deisopentanizer (new) increase octane. • Isomerization Plant (modified) Hydrogen Production Make hydrogen needed for reformulated • New Hydrogen Plant (new) gasoline production. Gasoline Blending (modified) Facilitate fuel blending that will meet all • Add two pumps specifications of reformulated gasoline. • Replace one pump with a new pump • Modify seven pumps • Modify piping • Replace computer Steam Production Increase steam production to meet increased • Increase Duct Firing at existing steam demand associated with the Steam/Power Plant, or Reformulated Gasoline Project. • -Install new steam boiler plant Utility Usage (modified) Increase utility consumption as necessary to • Water meet Reformulated Gasoline Project demands • Natural Gas (see Table 3-5). • Electricity Tanks (new) Provide 1,150,000 barrels of storage for • Ten tanks (new) required intermediate stocks and products. Marine Shipping and Receiving Facilities Increase stock/product shipping and receiving • No change in or additions to facilities using existing marine facilities. Support Facilities (modified) Increase internal conduits to transfer water • Piping (increased) and materials among refinery components. • Process water sewers (increased) 9 Storm water sewers (increased) 5 duct firing at the existing Steam/Power Plant. The proposed Conditions of Approval would exclude this unit from the ap- proved project, and require the increase in duct firing (refer to Condition #15). Selection of the duct burner option would reduce the annual average emissions of nitrogen oxides to a level of less than significant. Maximum daily emissions of nitrogen oxides would remain a significant and unavoidable impact due almost entirely to marine traffic. Further discussion on this issue is provided in the Response to Comments Document (refer to Response "AB 2-14" on pages 2-145/146). ■ Pentane Handling/Benzene Saturation Unit: The modifications include a new Reformate Splitter, a new Deisopentanizer and a modification to the Isomerization Plant. The Reformate Splitter includes vessels, heat exchangers and pumps. The most prominent feature would be the 110 foot high by 8 foot diameter vessel. The Deisopentanizer consists of vessels,heat exchangers,pumps and a column. The most prominent feature is the new column which would be approximately 80 feet in height by 7 feet in diameter. Minor modifications to the Isomerization Plant, consisting of changes to the control system, valves and piping is also pro- posed. The minor changes would be consistent with the existing equipment and would not be noticeable. ■ Gasoline Blender: Unocal's existing blender is a computer- controller pumping facility that controls the feed rate of each blend stock. This component of the project would add and modify pumps and piping, and replace the existing computer system. ■ Steam Power Plant: This component of the project consists of modifying the existing Steam Power Plant by increasing duct firing. No facility modifications would be required. 2. Miscellaneous Facilities and Equipment: The project includes new tanks, additional pipelines and drain systems, and modifications to the utility systems to support project needs for water, electricity, and natural gas. 6 ■ New Storage Tanks: The project involves the construction of a maximum of 10 new storage tanks ranging in size from 40,000 barrels to 220,000 barrels. The majority of the tanks would be- located in the portion of the refinery that is bounded by San Pablo Avenue to the west and Interstate 80 to the east. The project site plan, which is included as Figure 4, identifies the location, the contents and the size of each of the tanks. ■ Pipelines and Drain Systems: The project would require the construction of additional pipelines which would be installed within existing pipeways. Additional process water sewers and storm water sewers would be necessary to connect the new components to the existing refinery water treatment system. No changes to the refinery Wastewater Treatment System would be required. ■ Utility Systems: Unocal proposes to make changes to their usage of water, electricity and natural gas. The project would utilize a 4% increase in water, would decrease the electricity currently exported to Pacific Gas and Electric, and would increase their natural gas consumption. The utility requirements are summarized in Table 3-5 of the Draft EIR (page 3-39). ■ Proiect Construction: The project would be constructed over an 18-month period, and would involve an average work force of 200 per day, peaking at 260 workers per day. Parking and construction lay-down areas are located throughout the site as shown on Figure 6. The project would also involve grading (57,000 cubic yards of cut and 37,000 cubic yards of fill). Additional details are listed in Figure 7 attached. Remaining clean fill would be deposited on- site at the north portion of the refinery as shown in Figure 6. V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The EIR identified environmental impacts which would occur if the proposed project is implemented. The EIR includes recommended mitigation measures which would reduce most of the impacts to a level of less than significant. All mitigation measures, with the exemption of Measure 15-4 have been included in the proposed Conditions of Approval. Mitigation Measure 15-4 would have required some landscaping to screen Tank 109 from Hillcrest Elementary School. The proposed Conditions of Approval require this tank to be moved adjacent to Tank 112 (approxi- mately 1,800 feet to the interior of the site). In addition, Condition #63 includes landscaping requirements for the south property boundary and along San Pablo Avenue that are more stringent than those recommended in Mitigation Measure 15-4. 0 9 19 W F 5 V O t a 1 O 1 • Y T o ~i 11 z,!on! ' m (77) e m a ZF \w � � ��� r Q" • m 0 d ,� •O i m f FN t rot a a 1 `$10 O l_ °' ' O IF O / r e- o .... r Z c `: , • o c Cot 3' CL -� i a c o ? S / U Ln O hbJbJ � � a� N o 0 0 0 0 .. .. :. U Cli 25 Q Q 25 - Z5 25 vi o S 0 vi o vi c �r v N N N .r - tri of - N W - - = Nlit d O O �C N d �SIT �O d - :: iii:"Iii i::ii ii C9 yy `0 M in /�r gra r+ 4.1 R L. R a+ - s � y y O R N Q y R R R �.-- C ADD Q m U A w V ►�i ►-� y cs,RC Cc h c c i i �- Qc c c c c -r C ca Oy C R C-. cc ca m m R O ,�r•:r a cz cn r 7 A summary of the impacts, mitigation measures and the associated Conditions of Approval is provided as Exhibit A. A. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts: The EIR found that a number of impacts could not .be reduced to a level of less than significant. These impacts are in the air quality and public health topic areas. Although mitigation measures were identified for several of these impacts, the measures would not reduce the impact to a level of less than significant. The description and analysis of these "Significant and Unavoidable" Impacts is provided in the Final EIR as follows: .1 Air Quality: Six air quality impacts were classified as significant and unavoidable. Refer to Chapter 8 of the Draft EIR for Impacts 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-4, 8-5, and 8-7. Additional discussion and mitigation for Impacts 8-3 and 8-4 is provided in the Response to Comments Document (refer to Chapter 3 of the Response to Comments Document). 2. Public Health: One public health impact (Impact 9-4) was classified as significant and unavoidable. The discussion of this "Employee Safety" impact is found in Chapter 9 of the Draft EIR and Chapter 3 of the Response to Comments Document (refer to page 3-24). 3. Cumulative: The EIR identified cumulative impacts for the emissions of criteria pollutants during construction and visual quality. Discussion of these impacts is provided in Chapter 19 of the Draft EIR. B. Beneficial Impacts: Motor vehicles emissions make up a major portion of total air emissions. Thus, reductions in motor vehicle emissions would have a substantial beneficial effect on air quality. Both the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments and the California Clean Air Act include requirements that will improve vehicle emission controls and phase in low-emission vehicles. The laws also require "reformulated" gasoline in order to reduce vehicle emissions. Reformulated gasoline is designed to reduce emissions of uncombusted hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, which are major contributors to ground level ozone. Reformulated gasoline also reduces carbon monoxide emissions, which can reach non-attainment levels in over 24 California counties each winter. Reductions in sulfur will reduce sulfur oxide emissions and improve automotive catalytic converter performance. Reformulated gasoline substantially reduces the level of potentially carcinogenic air contaminants (benzene and 1,2 butadiene) in auto exhaust and evaporative emissions. The California Air Resources Board estimated that during the first year of reformulated gasoline use, volatile organic compounds will be reduced by 15 percent, nitrous oxide will be reduced by 6 per cent, carbon monoxide by 17 percent and sulfur dioxide by 80 percent. These reductions translate to a reduction in adverse health effects. 8 Health effects of air pollutants are commonly described in terms of the increase in cancer risk probability as a result of the pollutants. The Bay Area Air.Quality Management District estimated that reduction in cancer risk in the Bay Area as a result of reformulated gasoline requirements would be 129 in one million. This equates to 12 fewer cancer cases per year in the Bay Area. It is important to note that this data reflects the use of reformulated gasoline in vehicles in the Bay Area and in California, and does not reflect the portion of the beneficial impact that would be attributable to the proposed project based on their market share. VI. PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS All comments from public agencies were received prior to the preparation of the EIR with the exception of the Rodeo Municipal Advisory Council (Rodeo MAC). The Rodeo MAC and Unocal negotiated an agreement regarding the proposed project. The agreement has been attached as Exhibit B. The points of the agreement have been incorporated in the Conditions of Approval (refer to Conditions #35-38, 66-71, and 74- 75). VII. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS In the past several weeks,two upset events with off-site consequences have occurred at the Unocal refinery. Between August 22 and Septernber 6, 1994 Unocal had a CATACARB release. According to a report received from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, a solution (trade name CATACARB) was released from a regenerating tower within the unicracker complex, resulting in a "sticky/greasy" fallout throughout the Crockett area. The release prompted 10 people from Wickland Oil and from Crockett to seek medical treatment on September 6, 1994. The BAAQMD issued a Notice of Violation to Unocal on September 8, 1994 for a public nuisance. The BAAQMD report, which is attached as Exhibit C, states that the release was a preventable incident. The County Health Services Department also conducted an investigation, and filed a report with the District Attorney's Office regarding potential violations of the California Health and Safety Code requirements for notification of upset events. On September 15, 1994, Unocal experienced a second upset event with off-site consequences. Unocal had removed odor abatement equipment for maintenance when the back-up system failed. For approximately two hours, sour gases (primarily hydrogen sulfide and mercaptans) were released. These gases are extremely odorous. Some can be detected by people in the parts per billion. These smells can cause . headaches, nausea, sinus congestion and irritation. The County Health Services Department reports that they received complaints from Hillcrest Elementary School and from St. Patrick's Elementary School both of which are located in Rodeo. The County Health Services Department is currently investigating the: incident. Health Services Department staff will be present at the October 4, 1994 Commission hearing to provide additional information the Commission may request. 9 The proposed Conditions of Approval include a number of requirements designed to reduce the possibilty of upset events (refer to Conditions # 27-32). In addition, Conditions #24 and #25 were added in response to the recent incidents. Condition #24 requires Unocal to submit to the County for review and approval their manage- ment process for internal and external handling and notification of any upset events. Upset events covered by this review include any event that would be noticeable off- site, regardless of whether there might be an associated health hazard. Condition #25 requires periodic reviews of the approved management process whereby the effectiveness of Unocal's process will be evaluated in terms of its effectiveness in preventing and managing any upset events. The assessment of Unocal's practices would be reviewed by the County at six month intervals for the first two years and once each year thereafter. The County Ordinance Code requires the Planning Commission to make findings regarding the impact of the proposed project prior to approving the land use permit. The findings and supporting information are as follows: A. The Health, Safety, and Welfare of the County: The primary objective of this project is to modify the refinery in order to produce gasoline which meets the 1990 State Clean Air Act. The goal of this law is to improve air quality and public health by requiring the production of gasoline which will emit substan- tially fewer pollutants during combustion. The California Air Resources Board estimated that during the first year of reformulated gasoline use, volatile organic compounds will be reduced by 15 percent, nitrogen oxide by 6 percent, carbon monoxide by 17 percent and sulfur dioxide by 80 percent. These reductions in air pollutants result in a reduction in adverse health effects associated with air contaminants. Health effects of air pollutants are commonly described in terms of the increase in cancer risk probability. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District estimated that the reduction in cancer risk in the Bay Area as a result of reformulated gasoline requirements would be 129 in one million. This equates to 12 fewer cancer cases per year in the Bay Area. The Health Risk Assessment which evaluated the impact of the proposed project estimated that the project would increase the maximum risk of cancer at the residentially zoned area by 1.3 in one million. Forty percent of this risk is associated with the emissions from Tank 109. Although this cancer increase is below the level of significance, the proposed Conditions of Approval would require the tank to be relocated approximately 1,800 feet to the interior of the site. The estimated cancer risk (due to the,project) to Hillcrest School is less than one in one million. Condition of Approval #2.C. will reduce this risk even further. The EIR included an analysis of a range of potential upset events from the implementation of the proposed project. Although the analysis of the various accident scenarios did not result in the finding of a significant adverse impact, 10 the Final EIR classifies employee safety as a significant and unavoidable impact. The proposed project does not create any new hazards not already present at the San Francisco Refinery. However, the refinery and this proposed project create an inherently risky work environment that requires special training and protective measures for all employees exposed to the refining operation. It. would be speculative to assess the safety of individual workers at this point in the project, prior to permitting, detailed design, and revised operating procedures incorporating new and modified units: Due to these uncertainties, the Final EIR concluded that individual workers may face significant and unavoidable impacts on worker safety. B. The orderly development of property in the Country, the potential to create marginal development within the neighborhood, and the effect on the General Plan: The proposed -project is located within an area designated "Heavy Industry" in the County General Plan. This designation allows oil refining and other manufacturing uses. The project's consistency with each of the General Plan Elements was evaluated in the project EIR. The majority of the Complex is located within the Heavy Industrial Zoning District. The project as proposed is consistent with the Zoning District requirements. Condition #63 requires landscaping along the south property line and along San Pablo Avenue to buffer heavy industrial uses from other land uses and from vehicle traffic. The applicant would be required to submit the proposed Landscape Plan to the Rodeo MAC, the Crockett Improvement Association and a facility Community Advisory Panel for review and comment. Condition #2.C. would require Tank 109 to be moved away from the property line near Hillcrest School. C. The preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base: The proposed project is not expected to adversely affect property values in the surrounding area. The project involves the use of lands currently designated for heavy industrial use in the County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project would employ a large work force, peaking at approximately 260 employees per day over an 18-month construction period. D. The effect of the neighborhood and the likelihood of a nuisance being created: The EIR found that the construction and operation of the project could create adverse noise impacts off-site. Mitigation measures which will reduce this to less than significant have been included in the Conditions of Approval. The Conditions also include a number of requirements designed to reduce noise and construction impacts (refer to Conditions of Approval #2.C., #39, and #40- #46). The two recent upset events at the Unocal refinery and the related Conditions of Approval are discussed in Section VII of this report. Any updated informa- tion will be provided at the October 4, 1994 hearing. LU PXXXXI V/2038-93.CK/9/29/94 UNOCAL CORPORATION REFORMULATED GASOLINE PROJECT COUNTY LAND USE PERMIT 2038-93 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Assembly Bill(AB)3180 became law in California on January 1, 1989. This law requires all public agencies to adopt monitoring or reporting programs when they approve projects with Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs)or Negative Declarations that identify significant environmental impacts. The reporting and monitoring program must be adopted when a public agency makes its findings under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA: see Chapter 2.6 Section 21081.6). The program must be designed to ensure project compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. If certain project impacts extend beyond the project implementation phase, long-term mitigation monitoring should be provided in the monitoring program. PURPOSE The mitigation monitoring program has been prepared as a staff document to ensure that all required mitigation measures are completed as part of project construction and maintained in a satisfactory manner during project implementation. This program is designed in a checklist format for ease of use by the responsible parties. The checklist identifies the individual mitigation measures and the time frame for implementation, and assigns a party responsible to implement, monitor, and confirm the implementation of the mitigation measure. A description of the elements of the Mitigation Monitoring Program follows this section. The mitigation monitoring checklist is provided as Table 1. 1 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM MANAGEMENT The Contra Costa County Community Development Department will be responsible for overall implementation and administration of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for development of the Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project. The Community Development Director will designate a staff member or other individual to act as the Designated County Monitor for the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Duties of the Designated County Monitor include the following: 0 Conduct routine inspections,plan checking, and reporting activities. • Serve as a liaison between the County and project sponsor regarding mitigation monitoring issues. • Coordinate activities of consultants hired by the Project Sponsor or the County when such expertise . and qualifications are necessary to implement and monitor mitigation measures. • Coordinate with agencies having mitigation monitoring responsibilities. Complete forms and checklists provided by the County of Contra Costa for reporting. Maintain reports and other records and documents generated by the monitoring program. • Coordinate and assure corrective actions or enforcement measures are taken, if necessary. Unocal will identify a Designated Unocal Monitor who will be responsible for coordination with the County on the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. MITIGATION MONITORING As noted previously, monitoring of the required mitigation measures will be the responsibility of the Designated County Monitor selected by the Contra Costa County Community Development Director. This 2 Mitigation Monitoring Program individual will lie responsible for ensuring that all of the mitigation measures listed in Table 1 are implemented adequately. Table 1 also provides specific information indicating at what point in the development process these mitigation measures are to be implemented, by whom, and what professional qualifications are required of the.submitting party. In most cases the submitting party will be Unocal. Table 1 also indicates who at the County should receive and approve the supporting information. It is the responsibility of the Designated County Monitor to verify that each mitigation measure has been successfully carried out even if the Community Development Department is not the Receiving/Approving agent. Every mitigation contained in Table 1 must be monitored for compliance, and each of these mitigations has been assigned a Monitoring Schedule. This schedule indicates at what point Unocal must have performed a given action and provided documentation. Each of these actions is keyed to a certain stage in the development process (i.e. Project Design, Construction, Operation, etc.), but many occur at different times or on an ongoing basis. The Designated County Monitor is, therefore, responsible for monitoring compliance on an ongoing basis and keeping a log of the monitoring activities. This log should identify whatever supporting materials were used to substantiate a finding of compliance. This log will form the basis for the annual reporting as described below. REPORTING SCHEDULE(Annual Report) Unocal Corporation will submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval an annual report detailing the facility's compliance with this Mitigation Monitoring Program. A copy of this report, as well as any supporting material, will be made available at the Community Development Department for public review. The report shall be designed to simply and clearly identify whether required mitigation measures have been, or are being, adequately implemented. At a minimum, each report shall identify, the mitigation measure or measures that have been monitored for implementation, whether compliance with the mitigation measure or measures has occurred, the procedures and standards used in assessment of compliance, times and dates of monitoring, name(s) of monitor(s), and whether further action is required. NON-COMPLIANCE ACTIONS If through the monitoring process the Designated County Monitor identifies one or more violations of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, this individual shall notify the County Zoning Administrator who will ensure 3 Mitigation Monitoring Program that one or more of the following actions, as necessary, are taken within three working days of such notification: 1) directly notify the Project Sponsor by telephone of the violation and attempt to obtain voluntary compliance; 2) notify the Project Sponsor of the violation in writing and request voluntary compliance; 3) request that the Designated County Monitor conduct a field inspection; 4) request that the Designated Unocal Monitor conduct a field inspection, and provide a written response with the findings of this action; 5) refer the violation to the appropriate agency or department; 6) issue a stop work order; or 7) revoke permits issued by Contra Costa County. MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST Table 1, the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, should guide the Community Development Staff in its evaluation and should be the basis for the monitoring efforts of the Designated County Monitor. The evaluation checklist is designed with the following categories: Condition # This category refers to the condition of approval number given by the County to each of the required mitigation measures. iccnP Area- This category refers to the issue area as identified in the EIR (e.g. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, Visual Quality, etc). Mitigation Meacilre• This category contains the text of a mitigation measure from the Final Environmental Impact Report applicable to the mitigation monitoring program. Multiple mitigation measures which require the same action have been combined to simplify the monitoring process. 4 Mitigation Monitoring Program Type-: The mitigation measures are keyed to specific steps or phases in the development process. The three phases identified are listed in the table as follows: Project Design: This designation corresponds to those mitigation measures that must be incorporated into the project's design in order to be successfully implemented. Construction: This designation corresponds to those mitigation measures that are intended to mitigate the effects of construction activities. Operational This designation corresponds to those mitigation measures that are designed to mitigate the operational effects of the Reformulated Gasoline Project. Cumulative This designation corresponds to those mitigation measures designed to mitigate the Reformulated Gasoline Project's share of anticipated cumulative impacts. Submittal Party/ Prnfesginnal (hualificationg- In most cases Unocal, the project applicant, is responsible for submitting documentation that the required mitigation measure has been successfully implemented. In some cases a qualified professional is required to assist the applicant. Received and Anrnnved by: This column indicates which agency is responsible for assessing compliance. This entity may be the Community Development Department, another County agency, a non-County agency, or a responsible party retained by the County with specific expertise or professional qualifications. It is the responsibility of the Designated County Monitor to coordinate with these receiving and approving parties to verify that each mitigation measure has been successfully carried out. This is true even if the Community Development Department is not the Receiving/Approving agent. Monitoring Scberlule The Monitoring Schedule is the point at which the Designated County Monitor must verify that a specific mitigation measure has or is being successfully implemented. This is also the time or frequency that the receiving and approving parties will receive documentation from the project applicant for evaluating compliance. Verifiration of Cnmplianc-- Verification of Compliance is to be filled out by the Designated County Monitor based upon the documentation provided by the project applicant, their agents(qualified individuals), or the Receiving and Approving agents. MITIGATION MEASURES The complete text of the required mitigation measures is found in Table 1. Further information regarding the specific impacts these measures are designed to mitigate, and additional discussion pertaining to these mitigation measures is contained in the Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Environmental Impact Report. 5 8 04 ., gsrF U a� P> m 89 U o � •= b ?4 b a cp �n a io °$ 3 Enc' w bpc o N a w 5 AA w a q � c.9,p R �iR . p N A O QSy _ _ .�� . cu J rn q Io f6 � �,`1 �� L^�, O "�• FS O n�p � 'p <qOq v+ tti � - 'w N . c � 1'r rx� ro o�� oaalio ° at" g (copp poo Qgo,pg 4 fp i� 19 $ o c�� y ti a � p ? u�co i V W SM} < N ti ^ 6 p�,. A O.M W N lb tB `to to =(DN vOpi N C W ,w«�j Yi O per.N _ �b Rt 0.�OCI �� � a O r, Ej' � �j � N � C-0 A Up �y p �j p C N (� '~gR O 1p N i9 K a ry^ry p,y . V o v � �•� (gyp �� ..'�� � � �, cap 7 N d a d o 0 7i OQ'c� O. o ��y m COac 9)c: a- io tro o 93. b m 52 �a�b gad ca nE o,b cm = �pi boy c o'2. W O {A N ci O aA � oa � O • g- c •- - a C - oa `(��• Q$jff � c acct . c' G� '.•b $p•� O'��d � it o { F "roJ .a w w 0 ° bPf^Q .� $ A ty co 0. G k'i W G a co to Y ���VQO `�° �' °a•°- ��8�' �,� mom,$ o• o .p 6 o � !' 04 8 $cnu� o baa C'n Fi •� $ c�'a• . OQ - it Eo w Vm� v~ w ~i 4.e CA "�c�+ rrt 7•y b G'f G w' 0a7-Gi• C• a � oac P $ pp ':' ~•� Frit � O 849,.c.N 25•. v, �� +d.�yy G,�y f co N Npy O W r� CGb Fp N +n.1 O M O �� res.7� � �.H��, y � O �•�p. �`O-_,�• N �,�°'Opo° � � � °�ut-o �$� �' �"8drir'�..•,� �- o b�b7 RFS"p• CoA to vi y'W uq p Kn Q „y ^ G "•� ° we6 co 0�.. . o�• 15 I F �la N w G•mac r W. � • otk`o' o ' a• wQ ao a c• C,al ro �. �� w C � O•� yGrye alQQ a °° � • UQ - OQ ^SS r d� � =x 8 N N ✓ W � � ipp pr .sy to Y4 ��N O r � O 6A�ryCC�F�+•� � _ s y� 7•�;� � �Fo �•� �{ � ..t Oa{•A y'^J Ff�p0� �. �"j fb po O � 4i � N N P'�C �•�O ".n•(FO N CG th A I^O _ fes$ cgv N ca N r `FSy., P•^ .ice .6 OQ;'E Q'g .�+ . �•cm✓"�O O '«y«�+� P P,�,,•� N ?O,^."'may' 7't. �+iItp g < a G O tt «�•r'Zf G r1 p Oe G 'C A C•a A- `t N�Ypoo C"A A O Fn O .* C• 0 Aa ,..------"'""a mac+ � �'�••• •� Cy b � �• "o' Cxl Woo 'Lgo =W O rrs C) no a M r A • o rj, a b Sp- dat ab F O dY cKto GS ao Ca a F3 '$ S' ob q a w O as o g o <o a w _ pyy�j O vil a p 4 a - 2.n@ a C a a .,g g m S. o '" <•`.»+ f1 G 2jj 60 t Pyr �• .� p �Q¢ �, +,� ( b 2v b a� ]?o "y6+ m � YyO �i� `b^O•o �. m 7p 7 O N ��V}+� N�Ls"� F• � b O �.- i3 O � A gyp-N� tW� ? ? 1**��n�K; R 'j' - V' f6. (T� Y►' � N Ow$co aof0y`o w a N 'p P N, •r Gw ado O a `S.1 P..ti» G{u 'rte. to�_c � � a „� � � w _ta �-��,, t"�,�'s t0,.,,w�e�•1P � N tz7�y tc V+ to US. 6pp ttp • ��.�'�� .� n� � '` 5n5��•'� � � �''`e3� X�.r,,.`?� fid' o�',oG zz Y n c• � ny �y W p . a O M to e aro c7 9w C_ V ay .y oa 00 S3 0 UG-�O ao o ? �r �•4 5. ? -_�_..---j._-�--s'"°-mss=• �. 4 r g { r e zoa G G pity 7 0�"'+„�.�(�9 ��, w ��p 7$°n $�• o}• w� yoo„ "+� ��' �._ � � •p ..c�3y 70�y {q• {w¢yj,,� ,4'. N N •G,� N .00." Vim}+ inn. PQq.. �•'''� G f► P FA C� I �•� n p. {• c7p � b �.. O+ v Cy' a a' �" '� a �•�n �j^, n N GT'" .� A rOw rag, N .d,y C• ?'C.Yom„ y 7 w�i �: „� i�r � ".y•r 0..-C• S N �a �t ��w i6���7 G w �p c��y � v, `•fin �W" 7 YNN,.� y �. 1- ��.�,'v.� �Cj 0 •� o' �, � p p a 2' � �i' ui Goy. `w"macro -{ten - �° �(r� •,,,;n�v, Y'". C•PcGioo�- � I w�.� �° �v .G., 6i �0 p wl Q•X R� � �� Odp =� � o � � �O N �a N wr Q O (i f�f6 N (� •w, 0?� i �JG riy Fgy O r «n.om�• 1j ^•t to ^O V-4 � N � p i° n v � �i ",��-•+-' . fs- v, `v�• ... A b O '? C`' p .O•n nes 9p yK' n � �ro 3 2 � �� d C 7•„ 0 �.,, 7O Fid,',y p4 7U _ p y n OG �• O W r " s -a 7 p wj j9 O.n a G - P SIX . ti r A a v' �•a VO A �c 2D gg eon O , n g o �i 7 Yw ate, a m ?te Oa7. O• ' a .. ✓p bG. OS 7 i 4;) p ✓�, ; N.D C Fj c e - � H O •,j p N T N , N � .q 0 d a m� �7Qn _ �� p SGL ad G~ G g a vo2:, � a Y+�7 7 ° QY Gs. °y o skryi Y�.�, O. a° oGc ��3' �0 �7 YS,p✓ ° o iT 0 0b'+�°G. ocra°a c� a+��'Go o �' t o °'3• ���O O^��N� o• Qn '�j.� '���.Via° �,Fn ?�� � p.�7 QA9 a � Viol E• 7s N io roq d N V Ti ° o�n�as N•� �o•�, lg tift 0- 0 7 x 9 is..e 7 �• 4 ." ' cu 7 7 {t o O' O,a O N 0 A G � O 7 Nom,p ri 7 b� R, zo O0o. 7 ^ p C c. 0 Cr"'' O ��n i?�.r� 8 ��d �� � � 0.v � �.t•P.,9OQ mOo � 6� 2.`b' t� O ��. o^ �•n� ag,�.� -�'° � E'er ��� oc �� � �� �. °' s b "•nom��•�,02 g� P U.'g� �. }n' i�X tie: 9v I `__'! N 5, P' O OF O J] �. �j•yT C oo s' y O � �o � � W �^�.� y_�,�p'�^'� pp�•A.�y � 'sO�' � �.�S yC ].ro� ArJ 0.1 S=� _ M .00 O O O ug § 7n fJ' S.A'N^� b C n G• O O• N � N W O y A «�N W�• L`� O p � �O 2 O.QI IN 31 o ^ A o y ao ., Oi o`r nr o 5.�� SO En m Ar- 00 O R nt OQ M O A Yl N to p p R5 d o tz goo 'R cP.p �00� _ G n O 00 p 00 n 00 -- z 0 z. < d o. era c 7 ek � .o •✓ a T9n .f �,,,_ P�ON� R i/�, � 'fY T,y1n Q M ,yFR_� f,.•"� d t N Y y MAI R to Or•Ypa �' R �•O ?pr0 ,0,,, d Fj '^ ��..�4 y � rR�;,.�' ?.o°7 7 p. �.SpO� ..� .e �.•on C N o 9 0 G� t�o.7 ro 7 O 7 ✓R R ?"Y3 Co '�n.0 7 Vtr �qam op 0- 0 000 �c O. O 0�O � ,y 03 ty ,.• r S 7 R ��+(,p R �• r ¢. ci Fn R ? R 4 p� •d o vo �� . r • o ag•�lr K�n�.L o o T OR b br/p N N o'��•� O Y /� d.. O. $ d ��.�'m D tp a.�► P a O �� 'moi � y Q(pM� .'o oaaoM .caipa�q �da ((p��{ a8Ca �pap (�'� Sa4Q�yo' Ga coo S `► o � 00 14 ce o � s�j•' �-�.� t�p�. �'.�o � �'n w `a+'C• �O (a� �•" rte.o oar`° tiC came = o �•�,^'�� � o'�o� ro a'ta'$ � Ste, � �' o'�� � `e»' o �.� a� & $ ac: w �2ccJc $ MC co a r p' - o' � a a spa Sx d rA a KOOQ ' d a a N r O b y to OS zo - z �� a N „. O O Oq r � t . 1.'"� A � rM �. 6 R_ cH c a � N ,01 • � C 7 �S� � G Fes' � _N _ `• � _ lD - QQ z 0 N co � C OW C. a o n o � M fD j Unocal Petroleum Products&Chemicals Division / Unocal Corporation 1380 San Pablo Avenue ,/ Rodeo,California 94572 Telephone(510)799-4411 f � v � raZ .�- UNOCAL"' o� November 23, 1994 `�-2 .94 cn a x -Q Ms. Catherine Kutsuris Senior Planner 2' Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Ms. Kutsuris: RE: Land Use Permit #2038-93 Application. for Appeal Unocal hereby appeals certain conditions of the above noted Land Use Permit which was approved by the Planning Commission on November 15, 1994, relative to Unocal's San Francisco Refinery Reformulated Gasoline Project. Specifically, Unocal appeals conditions 76 and 77 of the above noted Land Use Permit on the grounds that they both need additional clarity. In addition, in accordance with our discussions and tentative agreement with the Crockett/Rodeo Coalition, Shoreline Environmental Alliance and Citizens for a Better Environment, Unocal has agreed to seek clarity of conditions 78 and 79. Specifically, -the community wants any decision made by the Zoning Administrator to be directly appealable to the Board of Supervisors. Unocal supports this request for clarification. Hence, conditions 78 and 79 are also respectfully appealed. In recognition that clarification of the above noted permit conditions may impact, change or modify other permit conditions, Unocal respectfully reserves the right to raise specific issues relative to other permit conditions, if deemed necessary. Enclosed please find a check to Contra Costa County in the amount of $125.00 as payment of the fee to appeal. Sincerely, ALLEN C. RANDLE Acting General Manager San Francisco Refinery ACR/abs Enclosure Unocal Petroleum Products&Chemicals Division Unocal Corporation 1380 San Pablo Avenue _ Rodeo,California 94572 Telephone(510)799-4411 UNOCAL 76 December 5, 1994 ACR-38-94 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors County Administrative Building 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors: Re: Unocal's Appeal Of Certain Conditions Imposed On The Land Use Permit 2083-93 For The Reformulated Gasoline Project Union Oil Company of California ("Unocal") submits this letter in support of its appeal of four conditions of approval of Land Use Permit No. 2038-93. The Contra Costa County Planning Commission certified the Final EIR and approved the Land Use permit on November 15, 1994. Unocal had previously agreed to comply with 75 conditions of approval after consultations and negotiations with the staff of the Planning Commission and members of the community. Permit conditions 76 through 79, however, were added by the Commission at the conclusion of the November 15, 1994 hearing. For the reasons explained below, Unocal appeals these four additional conditions of approval. UNOCAL SEEKS A LAND USE PERMIT IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF CLEANER BURNING REFORMULATED GASOLINE Unocal seeks Land Use Permit 93-2038 for its Reformulated Gasoline Project ("Project") , which is being undertaken in order to comply with new gasoline standards imposed by the California Air Resources Board (GARB) pursuant to the state's Clean Air Act. The cleaner burning gasolines that the Project would enable Unocal to produce are formulated to significantly reduce automobile tailpipe emissions, thereby reducing known health hazards associated with such emissions. The Project, which will cost approximately $100 million to construct, proposes certain additions and modifications to the San Francisco Refinery ("Refinery") to enable Unocal to produce reformulated gasolines in compliance with the law. The Project, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors December 5, 1994 Page 2 however, is not an expansion of existing operations, and total crude throughput at the Refinery will not increase. UNOCAL REQUESTS CLARIFICATION OF CONDITIONS 78 AND 79 TO INCLUDE THE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PURSUANT TO THE COUNTY CODE Unocal appeals conditions 78 and 79 of the land use permit on the grounds that these conditions do not provide for review of the decision of the Zoning Administrator by the County Board of Supervisors. Unocal and community representatives signed an "Agreement to Negotiate" on November 28, 1994, in which all parties agreed to work together in an effort to obtain this clarification from the Board of Supervisors. Unocal is aware of no opposition to this request for clarification of permit conditions Nos. 78 and 79. Unocal believes that any decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding the good faith negotiation or approval of a good neighbor agreement should be appealable to the Board of Supervisors. The right to appeal such a decision by the Zoning Administrator is provided by Contra Costa County Code Chapter 14 4,. section 14-4.002 ("Unless otherwise specifically provided, any ' person aggrieved by an administrative action itaken by any officer of this county under this code may appeal from the action to the board of supervisors, as provided in this chapter. ") Accordingly, Unocal requests that the Board modify conditions Nos. 78 and 79 to permit an appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator to the Board of Supervisors. Unocal also does not oppose the communities' appeal regarding this condition, as set forth in Unocal's response Ito the Shoreline Environmental Alliance's appeal. UNOCAL REQUESTS FURTHER CLARIFICATION OF COND:CTION NO. 76 REQUIRING DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF A FENCELINE MONITORING SYSTEM BY AUGUST 1. 1995 At the November 15, 1994 hearing before the Planning Commission, Unocal informed the Commission that, in accordance with its discussions with the community, it was voluntarily undertaking a pilot fenceline monitoring program to gather site- speCific information regarding the accuracy and dependability of current monitoring instrumentation. Unocal is committed to working with the local communities to design and implement a monitoring program that will meet their needs and concerns. Unocal understands condition No. 76 to require installation of an operational fenceline monitoring system on all Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors December 5, 1994 Page 3 fences by November 1, 1995. In recognition of the fact that instruments for fenceline monitoring are largely untested, Unocal believes that such testing should be performed prior to installation. Therefore, Unocal requests that condition No. 76 be modified in several significant respects. Before selecting and installing a monitoring program, Unocal wants to assure the community and itself that any information gathered will be accurate and reliable. To this end, Unocal proposes to design and implement a test program to determine the effective range of monitoring instruments, compounds that the instruments can detect, and instrument reliability. Community understanding of the abilities and limitations of any monitoring system is essential to the success of any monitoring program. Therefore, Unocal proposes that community representatives participate in the design of the test program and in the task of establishing criteria by which the results of the test program will be measured. Unocal's proposed fenceline monitoring test program is similar to programs being implemented by Chevron, Shell Oil and Tosco at their refineries in Contra Costa County. Unocal is willing to share information obtained during the test program, and hopes that other area refineries will do the same. As information regarding the effectiveness of the monitor is gathered and analyzed by each refinery, it is possible that new information will become available regarding fenceline monitoring instruments. This information should be considered carefully before any monitoring system is installed. Thus, the proposed test monitoring program is a wise and an equitable prerequisite to the implementation of any full-scale monitoring program. In addition, condition No. 76 requires Unocal to install a monitoring system that will "fully incorporate the best available technology. " Although "Best Available Technology" is a term of art used in environmental legislation, it must be interpreted by the implementing environmental agency to have specific meaning. Because fenceline monitoring is not required by any legislative enactment, it has not been the subject of a "best available technology" review by any governmental agency. Accordingly, the reference to best available technology in condition No. 76 does not provide a clear standard by which Unocal and the community can measure Unocal's compliance with this condition. Finally, condition No. 76 requires monitoring to be installed on "all fences. " A technical reading of this condition would require monitors along Unocal's borders with the ocean, on both sides of Highways 40 and 80 (which transect the refinery site) and East of the tank farm, which is open space.. Unocal and the community have negotiated and have reached agreement on the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors December 5, 1994 Page 4 issue of where the monitoring resources will be best applied -- upwind of the refinery where sensitive receptors are located. Therefore, Unocal requests modification of the: "all fences" requirement as well. In an effort to clarify the intent of condition No. 76 and to provide sufficient time for Unocal and the community to fully consider the implications of the test program data, Unocal proposes that Condition No. 76 be amended to read as follows: 1. Unocal and-designated community representatives will design a monitoring test program by January 31, 1995. The test program will be designed to determine (1) the effective range of the monitoring instrument, (2) the compounds that the instrument is able to detect, (3) the accuracy of the instrument at different ranges for the detectable compounds; (4) the reliability of the monitoring instrument at different ranges and for detectable compounds; (5) the suitability of siting options, including the effect of localized .environmental conditions (i.e. highways, fog, rain, wind, etc. ) ; (6) identification of specialized operation and maintenance requirements; and (7) the best means of recording the data collected. 2. Unocal will order the test instrument as soon as practicable after the test program design is complete, but not later than March 31, 1995. The availability of` the selected test instrument will be communicated to the community . representatives at the time of ordering. 3. Unocal will install the instrument within sixty (60) days of receipt. 4. The duration of the test program will be six (6) months. Data collected from the test instrument will be shared with the community at monthly public meetings. 5. Within sixty (60) days of the completion of the six month test period, Unocal will prepare a report:. The report will be provided to the community representatives. 6. After publication of the report, Unocal and community. representatives will meet to discuss the results of the test program. If the results of the test program support the -. conclusion that a full-scale monitoring system is feasible, Unocal will design a permanent monitoring system taking into account the information gathered. . The design shall identify (a) the location of the monitors, (b) the spacing of the monitors, (c) the compounds to be monitored, and (d) the method of recording, preserving and using the data collected by the monitoring system. Unocal will present the design of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors December 5, 1994 Page 5 the monitoring system to the community representatives within sixty (60) days of the date that a full-scale monitoring system was deemed feasible. 7.- If the results of the test program do not support the conclusion that a full-scale monitoring system is feasible, Unocal and community representatives will consider alternative monitoring systems, and, if appropriate, establish a timetable for the development of similar test . programs. 8. Unocal and the community representatives will perform the tasks described in this condition in good faith. If the parties are unable to reach agreement at any stage of the schedule described above, either party may submit a protest to the County Zoning Administrator for decision. Any decision of the Zoning Administrator shall be appealable by any aggrieved party to the Board of Supervisors. CONDITION NO 77 REGARDING UNOCAL'S COMMITMENT TO THE CUMMINGS SKYWAY IS VAGUE AND OPEN-ENDED Unocal appeals condition No. 77, which requires Unocal to commit 11$4,500,000, or an alternate amount determined by the Board of Supervisors, to the construction of the Cummings Skyway extension." As presently written, the condition does not state when such a commitment must be made, and leaves open the possibility that the Board will increase the commitment of funds required of Unocal as a condition of permit approval. The condition further requires Unocal to cooperate with the County and interested parties of Rodeo and Crockett, without identifying what such cooperation shall entail. Finally, Unocal believes that the condition is inappropriate because the construction of the extension is not reasonably related to the project. Condition No. 77 is impermissibly vague as presently worded. The condition requires Unocal to commit funds to the construction of the Cummings Skyway extension, but not state how or when this commitment is to take place. In addition, the condition contains no information or guidance regarding the considerable contingencies that may arise, such as allocation of alternate funding for the extension from Cal Trans, inability to raise the additional funding needed to construct the extension, or other impediments to completion of the extension. The direction in the condition to cooperate with the County and other interested parties, if intended to address these issues, should do so explicitly. Finally, Unocal contests the Planning Commission's .decision to require a contribution of $4 .5 million to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors December 5, 1994 Page 6 construction of the Cummings Skyway extension as unsupported by any substantial evidence in the record. Condition No. 77, .which . was added by the Planning Commission at the November 15, 1994 hearing, states that "insufficiently mitigated. environmental impact on the vehicle traffic in the Crockett and Rodeo area" is the basis for the $4.5 million commitment front Unocal. The Final EIR for the Project, however, found no significant environmental impact whatsoever on traffic from project operations. See Final EIR, Chapter 12, pages 12-55--12-65. The only traffic impacts expected from the project are related to construction activities, which will cease long before the proposed Cummings Skyway extension is constructed. In fact, the Commission heard evidence that traffic from Refinery operations is expected to decrease as a. result of steps taken by Unocal to reduce its use of anhydrous ammonia. See Transcript of November 15, 1994 hearing, 23:1-7. Therefore, the nexus between the. condition of approval and the environmental impact it purports to mitigate is absent. Even were some marginal impact from the refinery assumed, no evidence before the Commission supports its imposition of $4.5 million "or an alternate amount determined by the Board of Supervisors. " The CEQA statutory, provisions related to Reformulated gasoline projects, such -as this one, specifically provides that "[m]itigation measures imposed by the Lead Agency shall bear a reasonable relationship to the significant impacts to be mitigated. " Public Resources Code § 211.78.1(g) . Because the Final EIR, which was certified by the Planning Commission, determined that traffic impacts from Project operations would be less than significant, the $4.5 million commitment is not reasonably related to the project and should not be imposed. See Final EIR, Ch. 12, pages 12-55 through 12-65 ("project operations would contribute negligible traffic," and "would contribute virtually no traffic. ") Thus, Unocal requests that the Board withdraw condition No. 76 because it is does not relate to an impact caused by the Project. Rather, this condition seeks to confer a generalized benefit to the public that is unrelated to, or, in excess of, any impact caused by the Project. As such, the condition is unconstitutional. See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825, 834-837 (1987) . Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors December 5, 1994 Page 7 CONCLUSION Unocal respectfully requests the Supervisors to consider the issues and concerns regarding the four last-minute permit conditions added to the Land Use Permit approval by the Commission. Unocal is committed to working closely with the community and the County and is seeking a mutually acceptable resolution of all outstanding issues regarding the project. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Since y, ALLEN C. RANDLE Acting General Manager ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND JUSTICE CLINIC• SCHOOL OF LAW November 22, 1994 M r = n MC-, 0 0 BY PERSONAL DELIVERY -c7 N �:- co p Ms. Catherine Kutsuris rnw z -v Senior Planner Community Development Department M { N v Contra Costa County. tv 651 Pine Street C" 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: Land Use Permit #2038-93; Certification of FEIR Dear Ms. Kutsuris: Shoreline Environmental Alliance ("SEA" ) , on its own behalf and on behalf, of its members, hereby appeals from the decisions on November 15, 1994 by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission approving a Land Use Permit ("Permit") and certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR") for the Unocal San Francisco Refinery Reformulated Gasoline Project. The grounds for the appeal are set forth below. 1 . The conditions attached to the Land Use Permit do not adequately protect the health of the communities surrounding the refinery. Condition 76 of the Permit would require that Unocal design and submit for approval a fence line monitoring system for all fences at the refinery. This condition does not adequately protect the public because it does not require that: the system include remote monitoring. Remote monitoring is necessary because only remote monitoring provides early detection of hazardous releases and ensures the minimum acceptable level of public safety. Additionally, Condition 76 is inadequate because it does not provide public access to the monitoring results. Public access to the monitoring results ensures the minimum acceptable level of public safety by giving .the public immediate and accurate access to monitoring data. This unscreened access limits any incentive Unocal may currently have for delaying the report of a potentially hazardous situation in the hope that it will go unnoticed. MAILING ADDRESS:536 MISSION STREET•SAN FRANCISCO,CA•94105-2968 OFFICES AT:49 STEVENSON, 14TH FLOOR•SAN FRANCISCO,CA•PHONE:(415) 442-6647•FAx:(415) 442-6609 Ms. Catherine Kutsuris Community Development Department Page 2 November 28, 1994 For example, remote monitoring sensitive to any of one of the components of catacarb would have ensured a much different response to the recent catacarb incident. If a remote monitoring system had been in place during the catacarb release, the release would have been recognized as soon as it reached the fence line, not days later-. Moreover, Unocal would have had no interest in delaying a report of the incident. With remote monitoring, any hope that the release might be contained or go unnoticed would be eliminated because the public would eventually be advised of every release through access to the monitoring data. For these reasons, Condition 76 does not provide the minimum acceptable level of safety to the citizens of Contra Costa County and the Land Use Permit in question should not be approved. 2. The conditions imposed on Unocal's reformulated fuels project do not adequately protect the chemically sensitive local population. The recent release of catacarb from the Unocal refinery as well as the refinery's cumulative health impacts may have chemically sensitized many of the nearby residents. Both the FEIR and the Permit fail to address any of the possible health effects on chemically sensitized individuals living in the vicinity of the refinery. The Permit should not be issued until this question has been fully addressed. Residents of Crockett are at a particularly high risk of becoming sensitized from the refinery's operation. For example, .residents of Crockett continue to report illness related to the catacarb incident. In some cases, their illness is worsening rather than abating. Until research has determined the extent and severity of the health impacts to the chemically sensitized population posed by the proposed reformulated fuels project, the Permit should not be issued because it does not adequately protect the health of the surrounding communities. 3 . The Commission ignored significant new evidence which questions the validity of the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") . As stated in the attached letter of November 15, 1994 , EPA recently released a report which indicates that MTBE and its metabolites are potential carcinogens. Because the proposed refinery modification would increase the use of MTBE at the site, the Planning Commission should address the potential health risks which result from MTBE exposure if the Unocal refinery is expanded. Ms. Katherine Kutsuris Community Development Department Page 3 November 28, 1994 The California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA" ) requires that a lead agency recirculate a DEIR when there is substantial new evidence in the record of a potential, new and significant environmental impact. In both the attached letter and in testimony before the Planning Commission, SEA presented substantial , previously unexamined evidence showing exposure to MTBE may be a new significant environmental impact. Presentation of this evidence requires that the Planning Commission revise and recirculate the DEIR. If the County fails to recirculate the DEIR after this evidence has been included in the public record, the FEIR does not comply with CEQA and issuance of the Land Use Permit would not be in compliance with the laws of this state. 4. The conditions attached to the permit require the Zoning Administrator to make a legal determination without imposing a specific legal standard. Condition 78 of the Permit is inappropriate and potentially illegal because it requires that the Zoning Administrator. make a legal determination in an area where he has no professional expertise and without providing any legal standard by which to make a determination. The Zoning Administrator has no expertise in determining whether the parties seeking a "Good Neighbor Agreement" are negotiating in good faith. The determination of "good faith negotiation" is a question of law requiring knowledge of a particular area of law with which a land use regulator, such as the Zoning Administrator, would have no experience or expertise. Thus, it is inappropriate for the Zoning Administrator to be responsible for enforcing this condition. As well, the condition is overly vague and subject to various interpretations. Condition 78 requires .that the parties negotiate in good faith but fails to define what that term means. Because there are various meanings which attach to the phrase "good faith, " the Zoning Administrator would be able to chose any of those definitions or establish his own. By failing to incorporate. a definition of "good faith" in the condition, the Planning Commission gave excessive discretion to the Zoning Administrator and created a Permit which is too vague to be reasonably interpreted. ..t If the Board decides to approve the Land Use Permit, "good faith" as used in Condition 78 should be further defined to allow for accurate interpretation of the term, and the determination of good faith should be assigned to a party with expertise in this area of the law. 5. Further Grounds The grounds for this appeal are further set forth in the attached letter, which we faxed to your attention on November 15, 1994, in the "Negotiation Packet" given to the Commission on November 15, 1994, and in the public testimony before the Contra Costa County Planning Commission. 6. Fee Waiver SEA requests a waiver of the appeal fee. The members of the alliance have organized to ensure that any expansion of the Unocal refinery ensures the highest level of safety for their communities. To accomplish this goal, they have committed an extraordinary amount of their personal time to this issue. SEA does not have the financial resources to pay the fee to appeal and urges that you consider their sacrifice of personal resources and waive the appeal fee. A waiver is within your discretion and would help to minimize the financial burden on SEA. In order to preserve this appeal while you consider their request for a waiver, SEA has enclosed a check made payable to Contra Costa County in the amount of- $125.00 as payment of the fee to appeal. Very truly yours, C. David Briley Bar Certified Law Student ADAMS 8 BROADWELL 1 THOMAS R.ADAMS - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Oi COUNSEL ANN BROAOWELL ATTORNEYS AT LAW CARL L.MCCONNELL DANIEL L.CAROOZO BYRON MELLBERG I MARC D.JOSEPH 651 GATEWAY BOULEVARD.SUITE 900 PACKARD.MELLBERG JANIS A.LAROCHE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO.CA 94080 - S McCONNELL - TELEPHONE FACSIMILE (415) 589-1660- (415) 589-5062 November 16, 1994 VIA MESSENGER Catherine Kutsuris Senior Planner Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Re: Land Use Permit #2038-93 ; Certification of FEIR Dear Ms. Kutsuris: r Plumbers and Steamfitters Local #342, on :its own behalf and on behalf of its members, and Doyle Williams, Business Manager hereby appeal from the decisions of the Planning Commission to approve a Land Use Permit and to certify a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Unocal San Francisco Refinery Reformulated Gasoline Project. The grounds for the appeal are set forth in the attached comments. on the Draft EIR for the project dated July 25, 1994 and the enclosed letter to the Planning Commission dated October 4, 1994 . Enclosed please find a check to Contra Costa County in the amount of $125.00 as payment of the fee to appeal. Very truly yours, Thomas R. Adams TRA:bh Enclosures t ADAMS & BROADWELL THOMAS R.ADAMS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 7F COUNSEL ANN BROADWELL ATTORNEYS AT LAW CARL L.MGCONNELL DANIEL L.CAROOZO - BYRON MELLBERG MARC D.JOSEPH P.O.BOX 1864 PACKARD.MELLBERG JANIS A.LAROCHE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO.CA 94083-1864 b MCCONNELL 651 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 900 TELEPHONE - FACSIMILE (415) 589-1660 - - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94080 - (415) 589.5062 ew October 4, 1994 Planning Commission Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project; Proposed Land Use Permit 1 2038-93; Proposed Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report Dear Members of the Planning Commission: F The following comments on the proposed Land Use Permit. # 2038-93 and proposed certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project ("project") are submitted on behalf of the United Association of .Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 342, and Doyle Williams. The proposed Land Use Permit and the certification of the EIR are scheduled for your consideration on October 4, 1994. The EIR does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") , and should not be certified. Local 342 and Doyle Williams object to approval of the land use permit. I. THE LAND USE PERMIT SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE ZONING CODE AND IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY In order to grant the land use permit, the County must make a finding that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the County; that it shall not adversely affect the policies and goals as set by the General " wmfe0 on n3CVUed paper Planning Commission October 4, 1994 Page 2 Plan; and that it shall not create a nuisance: and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. (County Zoning Code § § 26-2.2008 (1) , (4) , and (5) . ) 1 The project would be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the County, and would create nuisance and enforcement problems. Accordingly, the County should not approve the land -use permit. A. The Project Will Be Detrimental to the Health, Safety, and General Welfare of the County Management at the Unocal refinery has been unable to protect the community from a series of accidents at the refinery that have released toxic gases and endangered the public health and safety. As recently as September 4, 1994, and again on September 15, 1994, failures and leaks in Unocal process equipment caused upsets resulting in the emission of toxic gases to the surrounding neighborhoods. According to the attached article published in the Contra Costa Times on September 23, 1994, entitled "Residents Sue Unocal for $1 Billion Over Leaks, " many tons of toxic chemicals were released, including an .estimated 100 tons of alkaline solutions of Catacarb and hydrogen sulfide,, which made scores of people ill during the past month. The suit claims that the releases are likely to cause long-term health problems for Crockett and Rodeo residents. It also faults Unocal for failing to stop the leak and for not immediately informing the public„ The District Attorney's Office is investigating the accident for possible criminal or civil penalties. According to the article, though the releases began August 22,, 1994, Unocal did not take any corrective measures, . such as shutting down leaking equipment, until September 6, 1994 . If true,, this extraordinary disregard for the health of refinery neighbors indicates that the refinery should be evaluated for closing, not expansion. 1 The County Zoning Code (Chapter 84-63) requires that a Land Use Permit be obtained for the proposed project due to its increased production of hazardous materials and/or hazardous wastes. (DEIR, p. 4-15) . Land use permits :required by Chapter 84-63 must comply with the provisions of Chapter 26-2 . (County Zoning Code § 84-63 . 1002) . i. Planning Commission October 4 , 1994 Page 3 Hydrogen sulfide, which reportedly was released from .the refinery, is a malodorous and toxic gas.' Hydrogen sulfide emissions, even in very low concentrations, cause nausea, headache and shortness of breath, sleep disturbance, and throat and eye irritation.' The potential dangers of hydrogen sulfide to the community is not an idle concern. On August 10, 1994, three workers were killed and four injured in Ventura County when exposed to hydrogen sulfide in a drilling operation.' According to the Assistant Fire Chief on the scene, hydrogen sulfide can be absorbed into the bloodstream so rapidly that it is sometimes fatal by the time a person smells it. "In the right concentration, you can be very dead in one breath. ,5 Unocal's track record of disregard for the health and welfare of Contra Costa County citizens should be an alarm bell for the County. Unocal's recent releases of toxic materials are not unusual. The EIR is rife with examples of Unocal's poor record of environmental compliance. For example, the EIR indicates that Unocal exceeds its maximum permit limits for discharge of selenium to the San Francisco Bay by a factor of three to six times (150 to 310 ug/L) . (DEIR, Table 6-5) . The Regional Water Quality Control Board and citizens groups have sought in vain to bring Unocal into compliance with the law. A recent federal court decision found that Unocal has violated ' N. Irving Sax, Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, 6th Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1984, p. 1552, Karel Verschueren, Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals, 2nd Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1983 , pp. 743-744, NIOSH, Criteria for a Recommended Standard. . . .Occupational Exposure to Hydrogen Sulfide, 1977, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Emergency Response Planning Guidelines, Set 6: Hydrogen Sulfide, 1991. ' National Research Council, Committee on Toxicology, Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Airborne Contaminants, Volume 4, National Academy Press, 1985 and U.S. Department of health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, The Air Pollution Situation in Terre Haute Indiana with Special Reference to the Hydrogen Sulfide Incident of may-June, 1964, NTIS PB 227 486, 1964. ' Los Angeles Times, August 11, 1994 , p. 1. (Attached.) 5 Planning Commission October 4 , 1994 Page 4 its selenium discharge limit every day since: December 1993. This has devastating consequences for San Francisco Bay, for fish and . wildlife for whom the Bay is habitat, and for anyone consuming fish from the Bay. The community's experience with its efforts to enforce Clean Water Act requirements with respect to illegal discharges of toxic selenium into the San Francisco Bay is► a textbook example of an enforcement problem against a business: determined to avoid compliance. For years, citizens have complained that Unocal has been violating the Clean Water Act with respect to toxic .selenium discharges to the Bay. Unocal not only failed to take action to comply with the law, but actually sued the Regional Water Quality Control Board in an effort to have enforcement proceedings delayed until at least 1998. Unfortunately, Unocal succeeded in its efforts to delay any enforcement of its permit limit on selenium discharge by the Board for at least: another five years. In response, Citizens for a Better Environment sued Unocal in United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. C 94-1712, challenging its continued discharge of toxic selenium into the Bay in violation of the Clean Water Act. Although Unocal strenuously fought against the Citizens, Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson ruled that the r Regional Board's acquiescence with Unocal's five year delay did not satisfy the legal requirements for a modification of Unocal's water discharge permit. Therefore, the permit limits on selenium were still in force and Unocal, as the polluter, was subject to having the water permit limits enforced through a citizen suit. (Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 23- (July 8, 1994) . ) This represented a major victory for the Citizens against one of the most egregious of the corporate polluters of the Bay. (See attached Contra Costa Times article dated July 12, 1994, "Shell, Unocal Lose Bay Pollution Court Decision" , p. 4A. ) This was not the first time that Unocal had to be sued in federal court to get it to comply with the law. (Sierra Club v. Union Oil Company of California (9th Cir. 1988) 853 F.2d 667. ) In addition, a United States Environmental Protection Agency Order was issued to Unocal in 1989 with respect to hazardous material pollution on eight different sites in the refinery. (DEIR, pp. 6-34, 6-37) . Five years later, Unocal is still "studying" the problem, and has not commenced cleanup of the hazardous materials. (Id. ) . This is yet another example of Unocal's foot-dragging on environmental compliance and failure to Planning Commission October 4, 1994 Page 5 protect the community from the hazards and byproducts of its lucrative business operations. Finally, the EIR cites a number of complaints to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD") which were a consequence of the maintenance of a public nuisance and odor problems at the refinery. From January 1988 through 1994, Unocal received 55 permit violations from the BAAQMD. (DEIR, p. 8-19) . Nine of these violations were due to public nuisance. (Id. ) . Thus, the refinery is already a nuisance. Unocal has given the County no reason to believe that the proposed project would be managed any differently than the existing refinery. Unocal's track record at its refinery has not inspired confidence in its respect for or adherence to environmental laws, its ability to protect the community from toxic releases and refinery accidents, or its response to the community's outcry regarding its repeated and continuing pollution of San Francisco Bay in violation of state and federal , water pollution laws. Unfortunately, such a persistent record of environmental violations and disregard of environmental requirements demonstrates the existence of a more fundamental and underlying problem: management that is incompetent, negligent or possibly worse. The repeated and prolonged history of environmental violations is conduct which is inconsistent with a management that respected its legal obligations to the community and to the environment. In order to demonstrate that its project will not be detrimental to the health and welfare of the community and that it will not cause a continuing nuisance, Unocal must prove that there have been basic changes to its management practices. Without such changes, all the environmental pollution control technology in the world or all the nice sounding environmental mitigation measures in the EIR will not prevent further environmental violations which jeopardize the ecology of the San Francisco Bay and the health and safety of nearby communities. To date there has been no demonstration that Unocal takes this problem as seriously as is warranted. There have been no demotions. There have been no firings. No key personnel have been replaced. ~ Under such circumstances, an essential first step to protect the County's citizens, the community, and the environment is to prevent such a company from expanding its opportunities to create Planning Commission October 4 , 1994 Page 6 a nuisance and to violate the law by denying the Land Use Permit.6 II. THE FINAL EIR MUST BE RECIRCULATED FOR ]PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT BECAUSE IT DISCLOSED A NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Unocal project is large and technically complex. It will cost at least one hundred million dollars and require .construction of several new or modified refinery process units, plus ten new tanks, increased shipping, and support facilities, the impacts from any one of which would justify its own EIR. The project involves processes which are, by their nature, highly stressful to the environment. The refinery and the marine terminal are already among the largest sources of criteria and toxic air pollution in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. In these circumstances, it is extremely important that the public have the opportunity to comment on the EIR's analysis . of all of the potential significant impacts of the project. Because the Final EIR found a new significant impact, namely impacts to onsite workers (Final EIR, p. 2-183) , the EIR must be recirculated to provide the public with an opportunity to review the . EIR's analysis and its proposed mitigation, which we believe to -be inadequate. r The Public Resources Code provides for recirculation of an EIR, as follows: When significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 and consultation has occurred pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 , but prior to 6 The County -should also take note that the Final EIR continues to mislead the public with respect to Unocal's illegal dumping of selenium into the Bay. Despite the fact that we submitted comments calling to the attention of the EIR preparer the federal court decision which ruled that Unocal's final permit limit is still in effect and that Unocal's current discharges are in excess of that limit, the Final EIR falsely represents that Unocal is meeting an "interim limit of 5. 6 lb/day" and that the final limit of 0.85 lb/day will not become effective until July 31,, 1998. (Final EIR, p. 2-177) . This is in direct conflict with Judge Henderson's decision described above, which states that the limit of 0.85 lb/day remains in effect. Misrepresentations in the EIR justify rejection of the EIR by the County. . Planning Commission October 4, 1994 Page. 7 . certification, the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092 , and consult again pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report. (§ 21092.1, emphasis supplied. ) The Final EIR's finding of a new substantial environmental impact constitutes "significant new information" added to the EIR that requires recirculation. The Supreme Court has recently clarified the standards for determining when the information added to an EIR is "significant. " The Court held that recirculation is required, for example, when the new information added to an EIR discloses: (1) a new substantial environmental impact resulting from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented [citations omitted] ; (2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance [citations omitted] ; (3) a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that clearly would lessen the. environmental impacts of the project, but which the project's proponents decline to adopt [citations omitted] ; or (4) that the draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusoryr in nature that public comment on the draft was in effect meaningless [citations omitted] . (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v. Regents of the University of California (December 30,. 1993) 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 231, 240 ("Laurel Heights II" . ) Since the Final EIR found a new significant impact, the first prong of the Laurel Heights II test requires that the EIR be recirculated. III. THE FINAL EIR DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CEQA AND I3 INADEQUATE On July 25, 1994, we submitted comments on the Draft EIR for the Unocal project. The responses to our comments set forth in the Final EIR did not, in a number of instances, adequately address the issue raised, leaving the EIR inadequate and not in compliance with CEQA. Therefore, the County should not certify the EIR until the EIR is revised and recirculated for public Planning Commission October 4 , 1994 Page 8 comment. Following is a summary of issues that were not adequately addressed in the Final EIR.' A. Compliance With Reformulated Gasoline Sulfur Limits One of the requirements for reformulated gasoline is substantially . reduced sulfur content. (DEIR, p. 3-10, 3-11) . We commented that the EIR did not explain how Unocal would meet the new sulfur limits. , (Comment AB2-3, Final EIR p. 2-72) . The Response states that the sulfur requirements will be met by importing stocks from Unocal's Los Angeles Refinery, which will have undergone sulfur removal in Los Angeles. (Final EIR, p. 2- 133) . The impacts of sulfur removal from blendstocks in Los Angeles are a part of this project. The impacts will include increased selenium and cyanide discharges in wastewater, and must be considered in this EIR. B. Increase in Selenium Discharge We commented that increased production of jet and diesel fuel would result in increased discharges of selenium, which were not disclosed or analyzed in the EIR. (Comment AB2-5, Final EIR, p. 2-73) . We obtained this information fromselenium source studies performed by Unocal.8 The Response to our comment acknowledges that production of jet and diesel fuel will increase, but ignores the findings of Unocal's own study showing that increased selenium discharges could result. (Final EIR, p. 2-135) . In fact, the Response ignored the existence of the Unocal study entirely. (Id. ) . The potential increase in selenium discharge remains unexamined in the EIR. As described above, Unocal is currently ' The Final EIR has only been available for review for a short time, and this list should not be construed as a complete list of all our objections to it. We expressly reserve the right to challenge the EIR for each of its failures to comply with the requirements of CEQA. 8 Letter from J.R. Dietzman, Unocal, to Steven R. Ritchie, RWQCB, Re: Selenium Source Study, Unocal - San Francisco Refinery, NPDES Permit No. CA 0005053 , March. 23, 1989, Figure 1 (Attachment I to our comment letter on the Draft EIR, dated July 25, 1994 . ) The Unocal Selenium source Study, (Final EIR, p. 2- 114) shows that selenium originates in the U-248 Unisar, a hydrotreater, where jet fuel is produced, and in the U-76 Mid- Barrel Blend, a gasoline blender, where diesel is produced. (DEIR Figure 3-6) . Planning Commission October 4 , 1994 Page 9 in violation of its NPDES permit with respect to selenium discharge. This subject is of critical concern to the community, and has been the subject of federal court litigation. It is therefore imperative that all impacts of increased production of jet and diesel fuel be examined in the EIR, including the increased discharge of selenium. C. Ship Emissions We commented that the EIR understates emissions due to marine traffic by underestimating marine shipments from Unocal's Los Angeles Refinery to Unocal's San Francisco Refinery. (Comment AB1-2, Final EIR p. 2-65) . The Final EIR for this project states that, Materials shipped between Unocal's San Francisco Refinery and its Los Angeles Refinery would be on existing calls by Unocal owned ships. No additional calls would be required as. the ships can accommodate the additional cargoes. . . The Unocal Los Angeles Refinery's ship traffic figures cited in their EIR are not shipments to the San Francisco Refinery, but other transfers off-site. (Final EIR, p. 2-68) . f. However, the Final EIR for the Unocal Los Angeles Refinery (Wilmington and Carson Plants) Reformulated Gasoline Project states that, The Los Angeles Refinery is peripherally integrated with Unocal's San Francisco Refinery for the transport of some intermediate streams associated with gasoline blending. These streams, typical volumes, and mode of transportation include: • 3,000 barrels per day (average) of reformate and pentanes from San Francisco to Wilmington via ship. • 4,000 barrels per day (average) of depentanized fluid catalytic cracked (FCC) light catalytically cracked gasoline (LCAT) from Wilmington to San Francisco via ship. • 1, 500 barrels per day (average) of alkylate from Wilmington to San Francisco via ship. Planning Commission October 4, 1994 Page 10 These daily production values are estimates based on a yearly average. Product will not be shipped on a daily basis, but rather, stored until a sufficient volume is accumulated fora full tanker. On average, four additional vessel visits net month will be required (five additional ships and 1 less barge:) .' The two Unocal project EIRs therefore contain flatly contradictory information regarding the increase in vessel trips between the two refineries. As the increased transport of materials by ship is a major source of air pollution, the impacts of increased vessel trips must be examined in the EIR. D. NOx Emission Level We commented that increased emission of NOx was a significant impact that was not identified in the EIR or mitigated. (Comment AB 2-14, Final EIR p. 2-80) . The Response to our comment states that Unocal will meet the existing NOx emissions limits with increased firing of the duct burner, which is recommended as mitigation measure 8-4. (Final EIR, p. 2-145) . However, in order to meet the existing limits, the concentrations of NOx would have to be reduced by increasing ammonia injection to the selective catalytic recovery system at the steam power plant. (Id. ) . Mitigation measure 8-4 does not require increased ammonia injection. Therefore, mitigation measure 8-4 must be revised to require this indispensable element of NO, reduction. E. Tank VOC Emissions We commented that VOC emissions could be mitigated by using common technology to reduce these emissions from existing units at the refinery. (Comment AB2-19, Final EIR, p. 2-86) . For example, older tanks which do .not meet Best Available Control Technology ("BACT") requirements could be retrofitted with BACT or replaced with new tanks meeting current BACT requirements. The response to this comment states that "most" tanks already have BACT installed. (Final EIR, p.. 2-154) . This response begs the issue, because "most" is riot all, meaning that some tanks still do not have BACT installed. This mitigation is ' South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Environmental Impact Report, Unocal Los Angeles Refinery Wilmington and Carson Plants Reformulated Gasoline Project, (November 1993) Volume 1, pp. 2-25, 2-26 (emphasis added) . Planning Commission October 4 , 1994 Page 11 feasible, and there is no reason why these remaining tanks should not have BACT installed. The response also states that the amount of emissions reductions from BACT retrofit of tanks cannot be computed, apparently as a justification for not installing BACT. (Id. ) . However, mitigation is routinely required to reduce environmental impacts, including emissions, notwithstanding that precise computation of the benefit may not be possible. There is no requirement in CEQA for computing an emissions reduction benefit as a condition of requiring mitigation. To the contrary, CEQA provides that all feasible mitigation is required. (Pub. Resources Code § § 21002, 21081; CEQA Guidelines S § 15002 subd. (a) (3) , 1502.1 subd. (a) , 15091 subd. (a) (1) . ) The project cannot, be approved without this feasible mitigation required. F. NO, Emissions Reductions We commented that the County could require that Unocal reduce significant NO, emissions from existing combustion sources by installing selective catalytic reduction ("SCR") . (Comment AB2-19, Final EIR p. 2-86) . The response to this comment states that this mitigation is not necessary because BAAQMD Regulation 9 requires installation of SCR on gas turbines and boilers in 1997 and- 2002 respectively. (Final EIR, p. 2-157) . r The response does not take onto account that it is currently 1994, and legally mandated SCR is three and eight years away, respectively. There will thus be a significant impact on the environment from NOx emissions which will be unmitigated for the intermediate period. There is no reason why the County should not require . installation of SCR now, in order to provide reduced emissions of NO. for an additional three years for gas turbines and eight years for boilers. This mitigation is feasible and should be required. The County cannot rely on the implementation schedule in air district regulations to avoid its responsibility under state law to require feasible mitigation measures. G. Bellows Sealed Valves We commented that the County could require that Unocal use bellows sealed valves on all valves two inches and under. (Comment AB2-19, Final EIR p. 2-86) . This would substantially reduce VOC emissions and has been required for all reformulated gasoline projects in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, including Unocal's Los Angeles project, and has been Planning Commission October 4 , 1994 Page 12 agreed to by Shell and Chevron for their reformulated gasoline projects in the Bay Area. (Id. ) . The response to this comment states that bellows sealed valves are more costly than standard valves. (Final EIR, p. 2- 154) . However, since the reformulated gasoline projects cited, including Unocal's Los Angeles project, will use these valves, the additional cost of the valves is demonstrably affordable. Therefore, this mitigation is feasible and should be required. H. Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From Refinery Fuel Gas We commented that the County could require that Unocal reduce the sulfur content of the fuel gas burned at the refinery in order to mitigate the significant increases in SO2 emissions. (Comment AB2-19, Final EIR p. 2-86) . According to Unocal's application to the BAAQMD, Unocal's refinery fuel gas contains 230 ppm of sulfur. The SCAQMD requires than refiners and others meet a limit of 40 ppm (SCAQMD Rule 431.1(b) (3) ) , and Unocal presumably complies with this rule at its Los Angeles Refinery. The response to this comment states that reduction of sulfur in the fuel gas would require additional heaters that would result in- increased emissions from combustion. (Final EIR, p. 2- 159) . This response makes no sense. The SCAQMD requires the 40 ppm sulfur level, even though this requires sulfur removal equipment, because there is a very substantial net reduction in air pollution. Therefore, the County should require that Unocal reduce the sulfur content of its fuel gas to no more than 40 ppm. I. Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From Shins The Final EIR states that most of the maximum daily sulfur dioxide emissions is due to marine traffic. (Final EIR, p. 2- 159) . These emissions can be reduced by the use of low sulfur diesel fuel. (Id. ) . To reduce the significant increases in SO2 emissions from ships, the County could cause these emissions to be reduced. The EIR does not state that any attempt has been made to reduce these emissions or that such reductions would be infeasible. Instead, the EIR states that .The additional marine vessels anticipated with the reformulated fuels project" would not be Unocal owned ships. Thus it would be difficult for Unocal to require that they use low-sulfur fuel. (Fina1 .EIR, p. 2-159) . This statement is legally incorrect. Planning Commission October 4, 1994 Page 13 CEQA requires that the County make certain findings if it approves the .project: §21081.. Pursuant to the policy stated in Sections 21002 and 21002.1, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (b) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. (c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Thus, under option (b) , if another agency has responsibility and jurisdiction over changes in the project which would mitigate the impacts from ships, the County should make that finding. There is just such an agency. The BAAQMD is a responsible agency for this project and has jurisdiction over emissions from vessels traveling to and from the Unocal refinery.10 As such, the EIR should describe mitigation measures which the BAAQMD could require to reduce ship emissions. Then, if the County approves the project, it should io As a regional authority, the BAAQMD has the responsibility for control of air pollution "from all sources, other than vehicular sources" (Health & Saf. Code §§ 39002, 40800, 40001(a) ) . Thus, the District has the responsibility to control air pollution from ships, which are not vehicular sources. The BAAQMD has adopted several rules to limit ship emissions, including emissions while maneuvering. (BAAQMD Rules 8-46 and- '9-1-303 . ) Planning Commission October 4, 1994 Page 14 make the finding described under (b) above, so that the BAAQMD will require mitigation as part of its review of the project. Such mitigation could include limiting the sulfur content of the fuel used in the ships, requiring the use of steamships . (which generally have lower emissions) rather than diesel powered ships and requiring emission controls on ships. The DEIR implies that Unocal must own the ships in order for the EIR to prescribe mitigation. This is incorrect. The BAAQMD has the required authority and it can impose: such mitigation. Moreover, we know of no reason, and the EIR does not provide any reason, why Unocal itself could not be prohibited from allowing any ships which do not comply with mitigation conditions from docking at its terminal. The Final EIR also states that Unocal currently requires its own vessels to use low-sulfur fuel while operating in the Bay Area. (Final EIR, p. 2-160) . However, the term "low-sulfur" is not defined in the EIR. For this statement to have any meaning, the EIR should disclose the sulfur content of the fuel that is used in Unocal vessels operating in the Bay Area. J. The EIR Did Not Properly Evaluate Cumulative Ship Accidents r The DEIR dismissed cumulative ship accidents because " [m]ost events of this type would be totally independent of one another in terms of timing, spatial characteristics, magnitude, and the contaminants associated with any specific release, and thus would have no cumulative relationships and cumulative impacts. " (DEIR, p. 19-16) . (Final EIR, p. 2-107) . As we commented on the DEIR, this analysis does not comply with CEQA. The cumulative impact from increased ship traffic is not the increased likelihood that two new tankers will collide with each other or will have simultaneous accidents. Rather, it is the .potential that additional shipping will contribute to an increased probability of an accident. The EIR failed to consider that increased shipping from Unocal and other projects may cumulatively increase the likelihood of an accident. An increase in the likelihood of accidents could result in a significant impact. The response to this comment in the Final EIR contains no analysis of the cumulative increase in the likelihood of accidents from increased shipping from Unocal and other projects. (Final EIR, p. 2-187) . Rather, the response discussed only congestion in the Carquinez Strait and increased. Unocal vessel Planning Commission October 4 , 1994 Page 15 accidents, rather than increased vessel accidents from all projects in the vicinity, which is a substantially different analysis.in, The County should have found a significant cumulative risk of a shipping accident, and considered feasible mitigation. Any feasible mitigation measures must be imposed, either by the County by limiting use of Unocal's marine terminal or by the BAAQMD. I0. CONCLUSION The County should not certify the EIR or grant a land use permit for this project. The EIR is riddled with errors, the project would be inconsistent with the County's General Plan because important seismic studies have not yet been performed, and would be inconsistent with the zoning code because the project would put the public at even greater risk and would create a further nuisance. Instead, the County should deny the land use permit application at this time, and recirculate the EIR after Unocal demonstrates that it is willing and able to comply with environmental laws and after the errors in the EIR are corrected. i - r Sincerely, Adams & Broadwell Thomas R. Adams . Marc D. Joseph TRA:bh Enclosures cc: Catherine Kutsuris, Senior Planner Doyle Williams sup u r i)ca for $1 billion over leaks. By ROBERT BURNSON e� �3t vent the catalyst compound' from The suit,which was filed in Con* Staff writer traveling off-site. tra Costa County, by two Alameda This and other information leads County lawyers, names 26 people as MARTINEZ—A$1 billion class- county officials to believe that Uno- plaintiffs. The lawyers predicted action suit filed Thursday claims cal should have knovm that the re- that 5,000 to 10,000 people would Unocal Corp. was negligent in the lease was affecting the community eventually join In the suit. releases of tons of toxic chemicals days before it notified the Health "We've received hundreds of from its Rodeo refinery. Department, said Randy Sawyer, a calls in our office just this week;" The releases of an alkaline solu- chemical engineer with the county's said attorney Scott Cole. tion of Catacarb and hydrogen sul- risk-management program. . The suit asks for at least $500 fide made scores of people ill during State and county regulations re- mlDion in compensation for dam- the past month. quire immediate notifcation when aged property. lost earnings and The suit claims the releases are there is a chance that a chemical ac. medical expenses. It asks for the likely to cause long-term health cident could affect he community. same amount for personal injury, problems for Crockett and Rodeo Unocal notified the county about emotional distress,pain and mental residents. 11:15 am. Sept.6. anguish. - It also faults Unocal for failing to The District Attorney's Office is It also asks for unspecified punl- take quick action to stop the leak investigating the accident for possi- tive damages. and for not immediately informing ble•criminal or coil penalties.. The suit claims that the company the public. The trouble started with a pin- exhibited a"blatant disregard of the Company officials did not return hole-size leak Aug.22 that grew andhealth ane welfare" of area res- phone calls Thursday. eventually spewed an estimated 100 idents. In a related development, a Con- tons of Catacarb before it was . Though the releases began Aug. tra Costa County health official said plugged Sept. 6. Another leak re- 22, the company didn't take any Thursday that information from Un- leased hydrogen sulfide Sept. 15, "corrective measures, such as shut- ocal shows that by Sept. 4 refinery sickening some Rodeo school- ting down leaking equipment" until workers used a water spray to pre- children. r -a 1A's I 4.11 ,a�� 0 v y$i`�,�Fi a eo p Ali-% Ix. p � baa Ir.It us-t t - A lot .s a _ `vis i con IMEMO I VV '� C L Y S_ _ ��� :+c- a7C_�c3o mi: y ell , 4n +- is m CL LK O�0 � N r • i t j � i IR Iz \ c > IYE ! Californ-a and the Weti When the men removes their nozues.water staves gushing out ° .j of the [round. rewasmg a small :oncentrauan of hvdro[en swede fumes. Luna said. rhe men were mmectateiv overcome ov the gas. .vmch sent three ut them into carotac arrest.while the other four experienced respiratory prootems. ��� Assistant Fire Chief Dave Fes- L Assisna ta. ' Vintage Petroteurn's oil pnla Man plant Is Just off the Veffdua Freeway I :erhnit saxa the cutoness gas. a + hvproduct of crude oil that smells Itlte rotten.eggs.can be reamabsorbed itGAS: 3 Oil DrUlers K rapwly foto the blood stream that n is sometimes fatal by the time a person smells it. n the right ad in concentration.roil Hydrogen Sulfide can br vert dead ot one oat he Festenmq said. nouns that the lb workers had apparently not neon weann[gal masks. C"ls•id from At Firefighters arriving at the Haspttal in Camarulo and two to One victim at Lm Rc itcene used electronic sensors to Los Robles Medical Center in ICIM iffed as Derek Abbott i measure the toxic fumes to the air. Thousuid Oaks. Both hoscotais Oak View. was listed in and found levels low enough to are equipped with hyperoane condition late Wednesday. treat the tenures workers at the chambers.pressurised cylinder other vtrurn at that hos. scene. Luna said. Because the gas that allow doctor to admintster identified as Jerry Walker. had quickly dissipated. there was pure doses of oxygen. Bakervitdd. was also in no evacuation of the arca. "The chambers are pressur- conditi00.a Las Rubies qx One man was pronounced dead ized with 100% oxygen. whichwon=said. at the scene and two others died will detoxafy all the inert gases! Abbott had warted for I later at Community Memorial Hos- in their ttssue." said Dr. J.B. Petroleum Services about pitai in Ventura. Uffictals at the Wiimeth.director of the hyper- weeks. said his steptat hospnal said doctors worked on the bane unit at Los Robles. Al. George Farmer. He grew x two men for an hour.but that they displaces the gases instantly." Oak View and remtuy grac never regained a pulse. Norntauy. it takes about 5"t ed from Ventura High Schoc The dead and injured worker hours to reduce hall of the gasax Farmer sad his stepson were employees of independent In the vicumi'a system he said, enjoyed his brief work in tl contracung firms hired by 'ruisa. But with the hyperbane cham.• fields. Okla.-based Vintage Petroleum to ber.that time can he reduced to "tie bred ft." Farmer do the drilling.officials said.Pride abrkrt 24 minutrs. "He pat wanted to have a at Petroleum Services and Schlum. Job.Hes got a new trudt ar berger Well Services.both of Ven- that," tura.are the two contractors. Fanner said his stepson F The dead were identified as Sean Illtie disoriented. but in a David Hams.26.of Oxnard.Jason mood when he amved at Haskins.22.of Ventura and Donald Ventura County Medical G Johnson. 24. of Oxnard. who was emergency room. After t pronounced dead at the scene. All transfet.t. to Los Robles worked for Pride Petroleum Ser- condition improved thrvuE vices. the day. The other four critically injured ed workers were initially taken by "Ills mother just ." Fa helicopter to Ventura Cuunty Med- said atehe' doing gray. Fa ical Center. but two were tram- said late Wednesday. !erred to St.John's Pleasant Valley of the hteky onesJ t leu"see GAS.A3 WednesdJSUay at St.the co sat Wednesday that the trondiu the two patients there was proving. Jeff Sandovu. 3 Bakeratteld was in fair cone and was no Longer using hospital's hyperbaric char, Toby Thrower.55.of Oak ' was -responding well to U ment." a hosomal iooker sow fit . M♦ rtjc RE��i ��_. Mal 1 Y L4"O U. z i ug - 'E. $wll c •tw�/ .,gyp Y }e};!g 4-1 t O-`cc.j� •'G g X 3"3. e 'Sw�ar'q� wz� � ter► _` =�Ya=°� 4g�a ■..� �L= g ga wg !Y 8 nu 8 O w•' ` s� i wig 2£: VWAMW F+arc-� '= t+ c - i Y fl! � �cc$ppb �_ � O -' r/ �� O�y-'Y Vt�`• w � 'jN►3wE3= Y �e 3 t w e•.rr� i ='ji�E • w S= wLq nw�wesw J A�wS� C V+YL ]�!! 3•�3 ,.Ts�ewLZwC ��R �y4y eH�Q Yy F �ur S. s.rlfl Y OF. w rL T�-7i L-G"_}YYP AU LL° tita uG733Z = YuA EyC� `f�- €a- wtLsr. $ �t �ya!�sMT� 3stt Y1i c. $$r.�w �� Y";c E cc � ^'S Ey f�O C��� Y y4 • • S-4EEkc _Y.?,S�° stc w° 5't#�cyrgL4•��S-cY _.'e•�psFRYYyyr c�el3 ca !Q oe ts3�"Aw}!3►. >` .-�y ,.�`�= = u s F = °� �v+��_ •Y X ` •"•���y 'i_ i:=!4.Y i 'r = - -= z i ��~moi ve Gas Leak Fatalities Toxic fumes killed three people and injured four others Wednesaav at an OR ornducuon oiant north of Ventura. Concentratca hvilrourn sulfide can cause instant death. I ;o to Cone"• g 3; �S b 1 Fetal i �3 � � Oaa 4►Nt ' OIA�Y Vers• -� • t At•a N In Sr-~ we 19--00' 'elisr may poisonous Raathatim the:• odor of rotten eggs.It Is a bys.rZr— i of crude oil and can oe released into i the air ounng drilling for petroleum. i It is also usehl in the manufacturing of chemtrats. Nighr EfI•ets:An irritant and asphyiaant. c�� . it is highly irritating to eyes and I mucous membranes when Inhaled. ■tow eo•heeaaueeh:e20-150 parts per million I causm Irritation of eyes:slightly i ' higher concentration may cause Irntsuon i of upper aspiratory tract.If exposure IS prolongea.pulmonary edema may result. ■Walmm commasuma Slightly higher concentration may cause irritation of upper respiratory tract.and if exposure " is prolonged.pulmonary edema may reSulu A 30-minute e:cposure to 5W t p.p.m.rmults in headache.duxztn"s. staggenna Ralf.diarrhea.followeci by ElOdY Is Afftthebsd bronchus or bronchopneumonia. ■Van high eoncenvatiam Very high amounts paralyze the nervous system.Exposures of SM to 1.000 P.P.M.may be fatal in 30 minutes:high concentrations are msaintly fatal HM Oearit Can Rea& As long as the exposure level is under 700 p.p.nt. the blood can convert the gas tato a harmless compound. At concentrations above 700 p.p=—Lha body can't cope with the excess gas,which reaches.the brain and causes breathing to stop.Suffocation occurs in minutes.unless victim is removed and given artiffe w respiration. SWAG DWMWN Own 0 WWAMW rwr�ww ft 009 0 MW Il♦r[. M/dbA O WO ON.RY CM as M"Al la Iuaas iYn� I r �. I NOVEMBER 1993 SCH No. 93011013 Final Environmental Impact Report Volume I 1. For UNOCAL LOS ANGELES REFINERY WILMINGTON AND CARSON PLANTS r REFORMULATED GASOLINE PROJECT SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Prepared by ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING Chapter 2: Project Description include the installation of a new tower and associated facilities at LARW, are proposed to facilitate this change. 2.5.2.10 Mid-barrel Processing Units Because less naphtha is processed into gasoline blendstocks as a result of T-90 distillation point control, larger volumes of naphtha will require processing in the mid-barrel units (i.e., jet and diesel). These units at LARW will be modified to accommodate the higher naphtha feed rates and ensure that the mid-barrel product specifications are maintained despite the addition of more light naphtha material. The physical modifications associated with the mid- barrel processing units will Involve changes to pumps, exchangers, and piping. 2.5.2.11 Blending Systems Modifications to the existing mid-barrel tankage/blending systems will be required to accom- modate the increased mid-barrel processing rates resulting from T-90 distillation point control. These modifications will include changes to piping and pumps to accommodate the new mid- barrel blendstocks and the new blending rate. Blending system controls will be upgraded to ensure compliance with the new gasoline specifications. 2.5.3 Ancillary Additions and Modifications Associated with Both LARC and LARW 2.5.3.1 Product Storage and Transport r 1 ' A new 25,000-barrel sphere will be constructed and operated at LARW and used to store pentanes (Css) either from Unocal's San Francisco Refinery or LARK The intermediate i products and/or fluids with properties that meet the reformulated gasoline specifications will be stored in 17 existing tanks at LARW. No changes with respect to tankage, storage, or transport are proposed at LARC. While LARC and LARW are integrally tied to one another, the Los Angeles Refinery is peri- j pherally Integrated with Unocal's San Francisco Refinery for the transport of some Intermediate streams associated with gasoline blending. These streams, typical volumes, and mode of transportation include: • 3,000 barrels per day (average) of reformate and pentanes from San Francisco to Wilmington via ship. 4: .: 9"t UnOM Re(OrrrlUlaled Gasoline Proleq NOVefnbef 1993 Rnal EIR 2-25 69404)53-600 Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Final EIR • 4,000 barrels per day (average) of depentanized fluid catalytic cracked (FCC) light catalytically cracked gasoline (LCAT) from Wilmington to San Francisco via ship. • 1,500 barrels per day (average) of alkylate from Wilmington to San Francisco via ship. These daily production values are estimates based on a yearly average. Product will not be shipped on a daily basis, but rather, stored until a sufficient volume is accumulated for a full tanker. On average, four additional vessel visits per month will be required (rive additional ships and 1 less barge). The reformate, FCC LCAT, and alkylate will be stored in existing floating-roof tanks. The FCC LCAT will be used at the Unocal San Francisco Refinery to reduce the olefin content. Alkylate will be utilized as a high-quality, low-vapor pressure gasoline blendstock at the Unocal San Francisco Refinery. 2.5.3.2 Process Wastewater Sewer Systems The new unitsand modifications will require the integration of new process wastewater sewer systems into the existing facilities' process sewer. The new process sewer systems will be designed to adhere to EPA New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart J - Petroleum Refineries, Subpart 000 - VOC Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems; and EPA National Emission Standards to Hazardous Air Pol[utants (NESHAPS) 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart J - Equipment Leaks of Benzene, Subpart V - Equipment Leaks, and.Subpart FF - Benzene Waste Operations. The new sewer systems will allow wastewater streams determined to contain benzene to be treated in the existing onsite facilities prior to discharge. In addition, the new process sewer equipment would be designed to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1176 - Sumps and Wastewater Separators. In addi- tion, LARC will conform with the Los Angeles.County Sanitation Districts (LACSD)/Los Angeles County Department of Public Works wastewater discharge pretreatment require- ments, and LARW will be required to comply with the Los Angeles City Bureau of Sanitation (LACES) pretreatment standards. The process wastewater sewer system at both LARC and LARW will be modified to accom- modate the proposed new units. Wastewater from the new units will be treated in the existing water effluent treating units located at each plant with subsequent discharge to the LACSD in the case of LARC, and to the LACBS for LARW. Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Navetnbef 1 M Rnal EIR 2-26 68+0.053.600 ADAMS IS BROADWELL THOMAS R.ADAMS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OF COUNSEL ANN BROAOWELL _ DANIEL L.CAROOZO ATTORNEYS AT LAW CARL L.MCGO BYRON MELLB BERG ERG MARC D.JOSEPH P.O.BOX 1864 PACKARD.MELLBERC JANIS A.LAROCHE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO.CA 94083-1864 S McCONNELL 651 GATEWAY BOULEVARD,SUITE 900 TELEPHONE - (415) 589-1660 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO.CA 94080 FACSIMILE (als) 589-5062 W July 25, 1994 Catherine Kutsuris Senior Planner Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Proiect; County Land Use Permit # 2038-93 ,. Dear Ms. Kutsuris: The following comments on the Draft EIR for the Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project are submitted on behalf of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 342, and Doyle Williams. The Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Unocal San Francisco Refinery Reformulated Gasoline Project ("project") does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and is inadequate. Local 342 and Doyle Williams object to approval of the project or granting any permits by the County or any responsible agency until an adequate DEIR is circulated for public review and comment. The reasons why the DEIR is inadequate are set forth below. I. THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INADEQUATE CEQA requires an EIR to correctly and fully describe the project it is. evaluating. California courts have held that " [a]n accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR. " (County of I.pyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193 , [139 C.al.Rptr. 396, 401] ; see also City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 263 Cal.Rptr. 340; Rural Land Owners Association v. C1018.003 f Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 2 Lodi City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 101.3, 1024-1025 . [192 Cal.Rptr. 325, 332-333] ; and Santiago Country Water District v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 829-830 [173 Cal.Rptr. 602, 608] . ) Moreover, a project is defined by the State CEQA Guidelines as "the whole of an action which has the potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment." (Guidelines § 15378. ) Despite this requirement, the description of the project in the DEIR is incomplete in several important respects. A. Hydrogen production The DEIR states that the project will include a new hydrogen plant to meet the increased need for hydrogen. (DEIR, p. 3-27. ) However, the DEIR does not state either the: amount of increased hydrogen use or how that hydrogen will be used. This information is critical to evaluating the environmental impacts of the project. For example, the increased amount of hydrogen could be used for increased hydrocracking or hydrotreating, or other sulfur removal processes. This would result in -increased amounts of selenium and cyanide in the wastewater from the refinery, which would be a significant environmental impact:.' It would also increase emissions from the sulfur plant, and could increase emissions from transportation of the sulfur produced. On the other hand, if the increased amount of hydrogen will not be used to remove sulfur, what will it be used for and what will the impacts of that use be? The EIR must be revised to fully describe the function and impacts of this portion of the project. B. Compliance with reformulated gasoline sulfur limits One of the requirements for reformulated gasoline .is substantially reduced sulfur content. (DEIR, p. 3-10, 3-11. ) If Unocal will not be using hydrogen to remove: sulfur from its .gasoline blendstocks, how will it meet the new sulfur limits? Will Unocal use existing excess sulfur removal capacity at the refinery? If so, the impacts of this increased use are a result of this project even if no physical modifications are required. Will Unocal be meeting the reduced sulfur limits by importing low sulfur blendstocks? If so, the impacts of sulfur removal at some ' This is explained in more detail below. C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 3 other location are part of this project and must be considered in this EIR. or does Unocal's current gasoline meet the sulfur - limits for reformulated gasoline? If so, the EIR should explain the reason for this unlikely situation. The EIR cannot be legally adequate without a full explanation of how Unocal will meet each of the specifications of reformulated gasoline, and an evaluation of the impacts of meeting those specifications wherever they would occur. C. Increased steam production The project would increase steam production, either through increased duct firing or a new package boiler. (DEIR, p. 3-35. ) The DEIR does not give any indication as to how the steam would be used. However, as described below, the steam (as with the increased hydrogen production) could be used to remove sulfur to meet reformulated gasoline specifications or could be used in the Unisar to process additional jet fuel. This would increase the discharge of selenium, causing a significant impact. The EIR should be revised to contain a specific description of the use for the steam, and the impacts of that use. D. Diesel and jet fuel production capacity The DEIR states that the refinery will divert some intermediate products to diesel and jet fuel production (DEIR. p. 3-12) , but fails to state the amount by which the refinery will increase its capacity to produce diesel and jet fuel. Jet fuel is produced in the Unisar (U-248) , which is a hydrotreater, and diesel in the Mid-Barrel Blend (U-76) . (DEIR, Figure 3-6. ) Studies performed by Unocal show that both of these units are sources of selenium in Unocal's wastewaters.2 Therefore, increased production of diesel and jet fuel would probably increase the discharge of selenium. Further, jet and diesel fuel, when used, will result in increased emissions from cars, trucks, trains and airplanes which could overwhelm the reduction in emissions which result from reformulating Unocal's gasoline. The DEIR is required to analyze 2 Letter from J.R. Dietzman, Unocal, to Steven R. Ritchie, RWQCB, Re: Selenium Source Study, Unocal - San Francisco Refinery, NPDES Permit No. CA 0005053 , March 23 , 1989, Figure 1 (Attachment 1) . C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris' July 25, 1994 . Page 4 the impacts of the full cagacity of the proposed project, including increased capacity to produce diesel and jet fuel, whether or not that capacity will be used immediately. The courts have been clear that the full capacity of a project must be analyzed even if that capacity cannot presently be used. For example, when a new road or water and sewer lines are extended into an unpopulated area, the impacts of future users must be considered even though they cannot be used at the time the facilities are built. (Antioch v. Pittsburg (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325 [232 Cal.Rptr. 507] . ) The environmental impacts of the project cannot be fully evaluated until the potential impacts of increased diesel and jet fuel production capacity are evaluated. II. THE DRAFT EIR LACKS MUCH OF THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO REVIEW THE ANALYSIS A fundamental purpose of CEQA is to foster informed public participation. (Laurel Heights Imp. Assn v. University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426] .) An EIR must enable the public to understand, evaluate and respond to the issues raised by a proposed project. (Ibid. ) It is not enough that the decision maker be informed about the consequences of= the project; "the public must be equally, informed." (Ibid. , emphasis by the Court. ) An EIR is a document of accountability. If CEQA, is scrupulously followed, the public will know the basis on which its responsible. officials either approve or reject environmentally significant action, and the public, being duly informed, can respond accordingly to action with which it. disagrees. [] The EIR process protects not only the environment but also informed self government.. (Id. , 47 Cal.3d at p. 392 [253 Cal.Rptr. at: p.430-431] (citations omitted) . ) The DEIR fails to inform the public because it does not disclose the basis for many of its conclusions and recommendations. To assure that the analysis underlying the conclusions in an EIR is available to the public and to decision makers, the Guidelines direct that summary information which permits full assessment by the public be presented in the EIR, w1.iile technical detail be presented in an appendix. (Guidelines § 15147. ) Here, the DEIR contains the summary information but in many critical areas does not contain, in an appendix or C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 5 elsewhere, the technical detail upon which this summary information is based. The County's files contain information submitted by Unocal . which sometimes supports the summary statements in the DEIR. However, the County has not indicated that Unocal's analysis reflects the County's independent judgment. Moreover, as the Court said in Laurel Heights, it is not enough that such information informs the County about the impacts of the project. Unless the information is part of the EIR, the public is not equally informed. A few examples of information which is missing from the DEIR follow. A.. Criteria air pollutants from stationary sources The DEIR lists the expected increase in criteria air pollutants from each of the different parts of the project in Table 8-15. However, the DEIR does not contain any information disclosing how these estimates were made.. Even more serious, the Table cites as its source not calculations by the County or its consultant, but the applicant's consultant. This gives rise to a concern that the County may not have exercised its independent judgment in the evaluation of environmental impacts of the project. The basis of the DEIR's estimate of criteria pollutant emissions must be provided to the public and to the decision makers. This information must be included in the EIR or an appendix to the EIR. Whether or not a responsible agency such as the BAAQMD will review the estimates, the County, as lead agency, must exercise its independent judgment and allow the public to review and evaluate the calculations. A draft EIR must be circulated which fully discloses the basis for its estimate of criteria pollutant emissions, and describes the steps it has taken to independently verify the accuracy of the applicant's assertions about these emissions. B. Health risk assessment As with the criteria pollutant emissions, the assessment of health risk from increased emissions of toxic air pollutants appears to be based solely on the applicant's assessment of health risk. (DEIR, p. 9-14 . ) There is no information in the DEIR which would allow the public to review the applicant's C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 6 estimate of health risk. CEQA requires that the EIR contain the information necessary to enable the public to understand, evaluate and respond to the conclusion about the health risk from the project. The failure to provide information to allow the public to review the health risk assessment is particularly critical in this circumstance. The EIR itself discloses 'that Unocal's prior assessment of the health risk from the existing refinery was found by the BAAQMD to understate the actual health risk by three times, and that the health risk from the existing refinery is already 20 in one million, twice the significance threshold. (DEIR, p. 9-9. ) By failing to disclose the basis for the estimate of health risk, the DEIR leaves many unanswered questions. Did Unocal correctly estimate the type and quantity of toxic air pollutants which the project will emit? Did Unocal model pollutant dispersion using urban or rural coefficients? Did Unocal include ship emissions in its modeling? It appears not (DEIR, p. 9-14) , although the marine terminal is a major source of emissions. A draft EIR must becirculated which fully discloses the health risks from the project so that they can be reviewed by the public and by the decision makers. It should describe the steps taken to independently verify the accuracy of the applicant's assertions about this health risk. C. Shin emissions The DEIR presents the peak daily and annual average ship' emissions (DEIR Tables 8-13, 8-14) , and states that Unocal's consultant estimated these emissions based on "type of vessel, type of engine, type of movement, fuel usage, hours of operation,. and Bay Area Air Quality Management District, AP-42, and Exxon Clean Fuels Permit Application emission factors. " (DEIR, P. 8- 31. ) None of these factors, except hours of operation (DEIR, p. 8-39) , were quantified in the DEIR and therefore cannot be evaluated by the public or the decision makers. Moreover, , the list of factors upon which the estimates of _ship emissions were made confirms that these calculations are based on a large number of assumptions, judgments and estimates by the applicant. These assumptions, judgments and estimates should be spelled out .so the public and the County can review them. C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 7 A draft EIR must be circulated which fully discloses the calculation of ship emissions so that they can be reviewed by the public and the decision makers. It should describe the steps it has taken to independently verify the accuracy of the applicant's assertions about ship emissions. D. Construction waste The County, along with every other area of the state, faces diminishing landfill capacity. Construction debris is a very substantial portion of the volume of waste sent to landfills. Yet the DEIR did not describe the volume of waste which would be generated and sent to County landfills from the project. Without such information it is impossible to evaluate the potential impact of the project on landfill capacity. A draft EIR must be circulated that identifies the type and amount of construction wastes that would be generated, how and where they would be disposed, and that fully discloses all of the environmental impacts of handling the wastes. III. THE DRAFT EIR MAY HAVE GREATLY UNDERESTIMATED SHIP EMISSIONS Increased ship emissions make up the vast majority of most ofrthe increased daily emissions from the project. (DEIR, Table 8-13. ) The DEIR based its estimate of emissions on the assumption that there would be an additional 12 tanker ship calls per year, or approximately one per month. (DEIR, p. 3-37. ) However, it appears that the DEIR greatly underestimated the number of tanker calls that would occur as a result of the project. According to the Final EIR for the Unocal Los Angeles Refinery reformulated gasoline project, there would be AS additional ship calls per year, or approximately 4 per month. The Final EIR for the Unocal Los Angeles Refinery project states as follows with regard to transportation of intermediate streams between the two refineries: These . streams, typical volumes, and mode of transportation include: • 3, 000 barrels per day (average) of reformate and pentanes from San Francisco to Wilmington via ship. c1019.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 8 • 4,000 barrels.,per day (average) of depentanized fluid catalytic cracked (FCC) light catalytically cracked gasoline (LCAT) from Wilmington to San Francisco via ship. • 1,500 barrels per day (average) of alkylate from Wilmington to San Francisco via ship. These daily production values are estimates based on a yearly average. Product will not be shipped on a daily basis, but rather, stored until a sufficient volume is accumulated for a full tanker. On average, four additional vessel visits iper month will be required (five additional ships and, l less barge) .; Although the description of the types of products which will be transported between the refineries in the DEIR is consistent with the Final EIR for the Los Angeles. Refinery project (DEIR, pp. 3-34 to 3-37) , the DEIR underestimates the number of ships by a factor of four. The DEIR should be revised to be consistent with the Final EIR issued by the SCAQMD. If Unocal now believes that the DEIR is correct and the Final EIR for the Los Angeles Refinery project is ,incorrect, it should inform the SCAQMD and allow that agency to review the impacts of the change in an appropriate .CEQA document before it issues any further permits for the Los Angeles project. IV. THE DRAFT EIR UNDERESTIMATED NO, AND B02 EMISSIONS FROM INCREASED STEAM PRODUCTION The project includes increasing steam production. Unocal 's preferred method of meeting the additional steam demand is to increase supplemental fuel burned in the duct leading from the turbine to the heat recovery steam generator in the existing Steam/Power Plant. If this fails to meet the increased demand or is otherwise infeasible, a Steam Boiler Plant would be used. (DEIR, pp. 3-32, 3-35. ) The NOX and So, emissions estimates in the DEIR assume that NOX would be abated to a concentration of 10 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Environmental Impact Report, Unocal Los Angeles Refinery Wi-imington and Carson Plants Reformulated Gasoline Project, (November 1993) Volume 1, pp. 2-25, 2-26 (emphasis added) (hereafter "SCAQMD, Unocal FEIR") . C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25,1994 Page 9 ppmv and SO2 to a concentration of 100 ppmv. (DEIR, Table 8-15. ) A new package boiler may be able to meet these limits. However, modifications to the existing Steam/Power ,Plant probably could not. Therefore, emissions from increased steam production should have been based on duct burner modifications, not a new package boiler. A. 02 emissions from duct burner modifications According to the permit to operate for the Steam/Power Plant, "the average total sulfur concentration of the refinery fuel gas shall not exceed 230 ppm by volume. . ."4 The ATC Application indicates that Unocal's refinery fuel gas currently contains an average of 230 ppmv of sulfur. Because the project does not include any means to reduce sulfur in refinery fuel gas and the Steam/Power Plant is fired on refinery fuel gas, emissions from duct burner modifications should be calculated using a sulfur concentration of 230 ppmv. Emissions from a package boiler fired on refinery fuel gas would be comparable. Instead, the DEIR erroneously calculated emissions from increased steam production assuming 100 ppmv sulfur in fuel gas. The SO2 emissions from increased steam production for 230 ppmv sulfur in the refinery fuel gas are 14.2 tons/yr.s The revised annual average SO2 emissions from the project would be 32 tons/yr,6 which exceeds the significance threshold of 27 tons/yr. This is a significant impact that was not identified in the DEIR. It can be mitigated by requiring Best Available Control Technology ("SACT") . BACT was not triggered by the BACT analysis in the ATC Application because the duct burner modifications would not exceed existing permit limits. However, the impact of these emissions must be mitigated under CEQA and can be readily mitigated by requiring SACT. BAAQMD, Permit to Operate, Plant 16, Condition 594, #22 (included in Application for Authority to Construct ("ATC") ) . SO2 emissions from duct burner modifications = (0.027 lbs/MMBtu) (746 MMscf/yr) (1410 BTU/scf) (ton/2000 lb) = 14 .2 tons/yr. All factors are from ATC Application, Table 3-2 . 6 Revised emissions = 23 .8 tons/yr (Table 8-14) - 6. 0 tons/yr (Table 8-15) + 14.2 tons/yr (calculated in these comments) = 32. 0 tons/yr. 0018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 10 B. N(Q„ emissions from duct burner modifications According to the permit to operate for the Steam/Power Plant, the NOX emission limit for the heat recovery steam generator burners shall not exceed 25 ppmv in dry stack gas corrected to 15 percent oxygen.' This permit limit should have been used to estimate NOX emissions from increased steam generation unless source tests demonstrate a lower value. In the latter case, that value should be used and the source test included in the record. In the absence of information to the contrary, we recalculated NOX emissions from the duct burner modifications assuming 25 ppmv NOX in stack gases. The resulting emissions are 17.5 tons/yr° instead of the 6.8 tons/yr estimated in the DEIR. (DEIR, Table 8-15. ) This would increase annual average NO, emissions from 26.7 tons/yr to - 37.4 tons/yr,5' which exceeds the significance threshold of 27 tons/yr. This :is a significant impact that was not identified in the DEIR and should be mitigated. V. THE DRAFT EIR UNDERESTIMATED VOC EMISSIONS FROM TANKS The BAAQMD's tank cleaning requirements (Rule 8-5-328) allow theT control of tank cleaning emissions by either liquid balancing in which the organic liquid has a true vapor pressure of less than 0.5 psia or an emission control system 'that collects and processes all organic vapors and gases with an efficiency of at least 90 percent. The first method is widely used in the petroleum refining industry and has a control efficiency of less than 50 percent. Tank cleaning emissions in the DEIR were estimated assuming a control efficiency of 90 percent,10 but the ATC Application did not commit Unocal to using a more efficient tank cleaning method. If liquid balancing were used, estimated tank cleaning emissions would increase from 1.56 tons/yr to 7.80 ' BAAQMD, Plant 16 Permit to Operate, #6. e Revised duct burner modifications = (0.0133 lb/MMBtu) (746 MMscf/hr) (1410 BTU/scf) (25/10) (ton/2000 lb) = 17.5 tons/yr. 9 Revised emissions = 26.7 tons/yr (Table 8-14) - 6.8 tons/yr (Table 8-15) + 17.5 tons/yr (calculated in these comments) = 37. 4 tons/yr. i0 ATC Application, March 1994 , p. 3-13 .. C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 11 tons/yr or by 6.24 tons/yr.11 The DEIR should be revised to reflect the higher emission rate. These emissions must be mitigated, either with offsets, or the DEIR should be modified to require the use of an approved emission control system that achieves an abatement efficiency of at least 90 percent during tank cleaning. VI. THE DRAFT EIR UNDERESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM PRESSURE RELIEF VALVES Pressure relief valves ("PRVs") are designed to prevent pressures in equipment from reaching levels at which failure may occur. When pressures reach a critical point, PRVs open automatically, releasing material within the equipment until the pressure falls to a safe level. Uncontrolled valves release materials contained in the process unit directly to the atmosphere. The project includes four uncontrolled PRVs on tanks 310 and 311, which would store isopentane.12 There are two major sources of emissions from PRVs: (1) valve leakage or fugitive emissions and (2) relief emissions when the valves open to relieve pressure. The DEIR included. the fugitive emissions, but not the relief emissions, which can be substantial. Relief emissions can be estimated from the frequency of relief and an estimate of the emissions per episode. The BAAQMD has reported that there are 650 PRVs in refineries in the District and that in 1992, there were 12 relief episodes.13 Therefore, the frequency of relief is 0.032 episodes per year. For Unocal's four new PRVs, one episode would occur about every 8 years.1' 11 Increase in tank cleaning emissions if liquid balancing were used = (1.56 tons/yr) (0.50)/(0.10) = 7. 80 tons/yr. Tank cleaning emissions (1.56 tons/yr) from ATC Application, Table 3- 4. 12 ATC Application, March 1994, Table 3-6a, p. 3-7, and Appendix C. 13 BAAQMD, Staff Report on Recrulation 8 Rule 28, Pressure Relief Devices, Draft, September 21, 1993. 14 Relief interval= 1/(0. 032 episodes/yr) (4 PRVs) = 7. 8 years. C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 12 The amount of VOCs released-during a relief episode is estimated from an actual incident. On June 18, 1993, a PRV automatically vented at -the #5 Gas Plant at Tosco's Avon Refinery in Martinez. Tosco estimated that 75,000 lbs of hydrocarbons were released and the BAAQMD estimated that 300,000 lbs of hydrocarbons were released.'s Using Tosco's estimate, the emissions from relieving Unocal's four PRVs would be 4.7 tons/yr.l` Using the BAAQMD's estimate, the emissions from relieving these four PRVs would be 18.8 tons/yr. In the first case, annual average VOC emissions from the project would . increase by 14 percent and in the second, by 56 percent. Emissions from relieving of PRVs could be substantial and were not included in the emission inventory in the DEIR. The DEIR should be revised to include relieving emissions from PRVs. These emissions must be mitigated, and the DEIR should. be modified to require that the PRVs be vented to a vapor recovery system. VII. THE DRAFT EIR UNDERESTIMATED CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE FUGITIVE VOC EMISSIONS FROM SOIL EXCAVATION The DEIR acknowledged that "[s]ome of the waste soil is contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons" (DEIR, p. 3-43) but did not include VOC emissions from handling these soils in the construction emission inventory in Table 8-9. (DEIR, pp. 8-22 to 8-23. ) These emissions can be readily estimated and, together with other VOC emissions from construction, exceed the significance threshold for VOC of 150 lb/day. Excavation and handling of soils contaminated with petroleum products is widely regarded as a substantial source of VOC emissions." As a result, the U.S. EPA has established is BAAQMD memorandum to interested parties from Air Pollution Control Officer re: Tosco Incident of June 18, 1993, October 5, 1993, p. 1. '6 Relief emissions from Unocal's 4 PRVs = (75,000 lbs)/[ (2000 lbs/ton) (8 yrs) ] = 4.69 tons/yr. " U.S. EPA, Air/Superfund National Technical Guidance Study Ssries, Estimation of Air Impacts for the Excavation of Contaminated Soil, March 18, 1992; U.S. EPA, Estimated Air Emissions from Petroleum UST Cleanups, June 1989 ; U.S. EPA, Air C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris f July 25, 1994 Page 13 methodologies to calculate VOC emissions from excavation and soil handling activities. We used EPA's methodology to estimate VOC emissions. In contaminated soils, organics may be both absorbed to the soil particles and present as gases in the soil pore spaces. During excavation, the gases are released when the soil is disturbed. The soil-associated organics are volatilized more slowly and diffuse through the soil into the atmosphere. Thus, in the EPA methodology,1° VOC emissions are estimated as follows: ER = ERpa + ERdi== (1) where: ER = total VOC emission rate ERp, = VOC emission rate from the soil pore space ERditf = VOC emission rate from diffusion. So as not to overstate the emissions, we assumed that Unocal's Soil Management Plan would reduce diffusion to zero (i.e. , from covering excavated soil) and PMI, control would reduce emissions of VOC from the soil pore spaces by 90 percent. (i.e. , from watering) . Emissions from the soil pore spaces are given by: ERpa C X Ea X Q X E. X (1-R) (2) where C = concentration of VOC in pore space in ppm = 10,000 ppm Ea = air-filled porosity = 0.44 Q = daily maximum excavation rate in lb/day = 799, 200 lb/day" EC = soil gas to atmosphere exchange constant = 0.33 R = control efficiency = 0.90. Emissions Brom the Treatment of Soils Contaminated with Petroleum Fuels and Other Substances, July 1992. le U.S. EPA, March 1992, Equation 3, p. 7. I9 The excavation rate assumes a trenching backhoe removes approximately 12 ft3 per bucket, 1.5 buckets per minute, and a soil density of 1.25 tons/yd3, viz. , Q = (12 ft3) (0. 037 yd3/ft3) (1.5/min) (60 min/hr) (8 hr/day) (1.25 ton/yd3) (2000 lb/ton) = 799, 200 lb/day. C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 14 Substituting into Equation (2) , 116.0 lb/day would be emitted on the peak day.20 Actual. emissions may be much higher than calculated here because (1) pore space concentrations may be much larger than 10,000 ppm, (2) soil watering is far less effective at reducing VOC than assumed here, and (3) these calculations ignore contributions from grading, stockpiling, and transporting excavated soils. Adding the 116.0 lb/day from excavating contaminated soils to the daily peak VOC construction emissions estimated in the DEIR (78.0 lb/day) yields total VOC emissions of 194 lb/day. (DEIR, Table 8-9. ) This exceeds the significance threshold of 150 lb/day and is a significant impact that was not discussed in the DEIR. The EIR should be revised to include calculation of soil VOC emissions based on soil testing of each of the sites which will be excavated, and considering all of the routes for emission of VOC from contaminated soil (i.e. , grading, stockpiling, excavation) . Then mitigation measures should be identified to reduce construction related VOC emissions. VIII. THE DRAFT EIR FAILED TO EVALUATE AND RECOMMEND FEASIBLE MITIGATION FOR SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS The DEIR concluded that the project would cause significant impacts from emissions of VOCs, NOx, SO2, and. PM10. (DEIR, Table 8-13 , pp. 8-37 to 8-42. ) The DEIR also concluded that offsets required under BAAQMD rules would not mitigate these significant impacts because they would not be contemporaneous emissions reductions and could be offsite. (DEIR, pp. 8-38 to 8-40. ) Both of these conclusions are correct. However, the DEIR also concluded that there were no feasible mitigation measures for these impacts. (DEIR, pp. 8-38 to 8-42. ) This conclusion was not supported by adequate analysis. Although the lead agency has the obligation to identify feasible mitigation, there are many possibilities which were not considered in the DEIR. As discussed below, emissions could be substantially reduced using onsite contemporaneous emission 20 ERP, = (10, 000 lb/106 lb) (0. 44) (799, 200 lb/day) (0. 33) (1-0.95) = 58. 0 lb/day. C1018.003 - Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 15 reductions from other parts of the refinery and additional controls on project components. CEQA mandates that agencies adopt feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a project. (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21002, 21081; Guidelines §§ 15002 subd. (a) (3) , 15021 subd. (a) , 15091 subd. (a) (1) . ) Agencies are prohibited from approving a project where there are feasible mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment. (Guidelines § 15021 subd. (a) (2) . ) To implement .this obligation to mitigate, when an agency approves a project for which one or more significant impacts has been identified, it must adopt findings that for each significant impact either measures have been required which mitigate or avoid the impact, such changes are within the jurisdiction of another agency, or specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (Pub. Resources Code § 21081; Guidelines § 15091; Citizens for Quality Growth v. Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 440 [243 Cal.Rptr. 727, 730] . ) The findings concerning the feasibility of mitigation measures or alternatives must be based on substantial evidence in the record. (Pub. Resources Code § 21081.5; Guidelines § 15091, subd. (b) . ) To support these findings, the DEIR is required to set forth feasible mitigation measures for each significant adverse environmental effect, if such measures exist. The Guidelines require an EIR to " [d]escribe measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts. The discussion shall identify mitigation measures for each significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. " (Guidelines § 15126, subd. (c) . ) If an EIR fails to identify feasible mitigation for each significant impact, or discuss why no such measures are feasible, it is not possible for the agency to make the findings required by CEQA that each significant impact will be mitigated or that specific economic, social or other conditions make the mitigation measures infeasible. The DEIR should consider the mitigation measures discussed below and other mitigation measures. C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 16 A. Onsite contemporaneous reductions Emissions of VOCs, NOXI SO2, and PM10 could be fully mitigated by using common technology to reduce these emissions from other existing units at the refinery. For example, Unocal likely has a number of older tanks which do not meet current SACT requirements. It may well be possible to substantially reduce VOC emissions from such tanks- beyond what is already required by BAAQMD rules. The County could also require: that several of the, existing tanks with the greatest emissions be replaced with tanks meeting current BACT requirements. The County could require that Unocal use bellows sealed valves on all valves two inches and under. This would substantially reduce VOC emissions and has been required for all reformulated gasoline projects in the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") , including Unocal's project, and has been agreed to by Shell and Chevron for their reformulated gasoline projects in the Bay Area. Bellows sealed valves are also BACT for process valves in refineries.21 The County could also require that Unocal reduce No, emissions from existing combustion sources beyond what is required by BAAQMD rules. Such reductions could be achieved by installing selective catalytic reduction on existing sources which do not already have such emission reduction equipment. To mitigate the significant increases in SO2 emissions, the -, County could require that Unocal reduce the sulfur content of the fuel gas burned at the refinery. According to the ATC . .Application, Unocal's refinery fuel gas contains 230 ppm of sulfur.22 The refining industry routinely achieves lower sulfur concentrations in refinery fuel gas. Unocal will achieve a sulfur content of about 9 ppm in fuel for the new heater by blending refinery fuel gas with PSA offgas. 21 CARE, BACT Determinations Received by the CAPCOA BACT Clearinghouse During the Second Quarter of 1994, July 15, 1994, A350-617-94, App#265193 , 6/29/92. 22 ENSR, Unocal San Francisco Refinery Reformulated Gasoline PfoJect, Land Use Permit Application, Attachment E, Application for Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate, March 1994 , Table 3-2 ("ATC Application") . C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 17 The County could feasibly require that Unocal reduce the sulfur content of its fuel gas to no more than 40 ppm. The SCAQMD already requires that refiners and others meet this 40 ppm standard (SCAQMD Rule 431.1(b) (3) ) , and Unocal presumably complies with this rule at its Los Angeles Refinery. Furthermore, the SCAQMD issued a permit for a hydrogen charge heater for Unocal's Los Angeles Refinery reformulated gasoline project which specifically required that the heater burn only fuel gas with a sulfur content of less than 40 ppm. (SCAQMD, Permit to Construct No. 281357, condition 4. (A copy of the permit is Attachment 2) . ) The County should examine each of these options for mitigating the significant air quality impacts of the project, and should discuss its analysis in the EIR. Any feasible mitigation measures must be imposed. B. Additional controls on project components The DEIR erroneously concludes that increased emissions of Vocs is a significant and unavoidable impact of the project because emissions remain significant after the application of BACT. (DEIR, p. 8-37, 8-38. ) However, according to information in the County's files, apparently Unocal has not actually proposed BACT in all cases for VOCs. Further, there are several technologically feasible mitigation measures that could be required for project components that would reduce emissions of VOCs below the annual significance threshold of 27 tons/yr. These include the use of graphite gaskets in flanges, the use of double seals on all pumps, equipping pressure relief valves with a rupture disk and venting them to a control system, and using closed loop sampling systems. These four technically feasible control measures would reduce project VOC emissions by 8.25 tons/yr, from 33.6 to 25.35 tons/yr, which is less than the significance threshold of 27 tons/day. 1. Flanges The project includes 11146 new flanges.2' The "number of components" tables in Appendix C of the ATC Application indicate that none of these flanges would be equipped with graphite Z' ATC Application, March 1994 , Table 3-6a. C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 2.5, 1994 Page 18 gaskets.24 This is further confirmed by Table 3-6 of the ATC Application, which reports an emission factor of 0.0134 lb/day/component for flanges.25 This is the BAAQMD emission factor for flanges without graphite gaskets.26 (Note that the DEIR reports on page 8-38, apparently incorrectly, that graphite . .gaskets would be used.) The County could require that Unocal use graphite gaskets on all flanges. This would reduce VOC emissions by 1.97 tons/yr27 and apparently has been required for all reformulated gasoline projects in the SCAQMD, including Unocal's project, since the SCAQMD's allowable leak rate (< 500 ppm) can only be met with graphite gaskets.28 The BAAQMD BACT guidelines also specify the use of graphite gaskets and an approved inspection and maintenance program for flanges,29 and .graphite flanges have been specified for the Chevron Richmond reformulated gasoline proj ect.30 24 ATC Application, March 1994, Appendix C, Fugitive Emission Sources 25 ATC Application, March 1994, Table 3•-6. 26 BAAQMD Memorandum from J. Adkins and S. Lopez to Permit Engineers Re: , Fugitive Emission Factors, January 22, 1993 . 27 Reduction in VOC emissions using graphite gaskets = 1,146 flanges(0.0134 lb/day/flange - 0.004 lb/dayy'flange) (365 day/yr) (ton/2000 lb) = 1.97 ton/yr. 28 SCAQMD, Unocal FEIR, Vol III. A copy of the relevant portion of the EIR for the Unocal Los Angeles Refinery project is Attachment 3 . 29 ATC Application, March 1994, p. 7-2 . 30 Richmond, Environmental Impact Report, Chevron Reformulated Gasoline and FCC Plant Upgrade Project (August 1993) Vol. I, p. IV.C.30. C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 19 2. Pumps The project includes 19 new pumps in light liquid service that are equipped with single seals.31 According to the ATC Application, pumps equipped with single seals emit eight times more VOCs than pumps equipped with double seals.3= The County could require that Unocal use double seals on all pumps. This would reduce VOC emissions by 3.79 tons/yr33 and has been required for all reformulated gasoline projects in the SCAQMD, including Unocal's project.3` The BAAQMD BACT guidelines also specify the use of double mechanical seals or sealless pumps and an approved inspection and maintenance program for pumps.3-1 3. Pressure Relief Valves The project includes four pressure relief valves associated with new tanks that are vented to the atmosphere without any . controls whatsoever.36 PRVs are designed to prevent pressures in equipment from reaching levels at which failure may occur. They open automatically, releasing material within the equipment until the pressure falls to a safe level. Because these valves are a major source of emissions from both leakage and emergency relief, it is standard industry practice to equip new valves with a rupture disk and vent them to a vapor recovery system. A rupture disk is a thin piece of metal held in place by a flange that is designed to break open when the system pressure rises beyond a specified set pressure. Below the set pressure of the disk, emissions are minimal. 31 ATC Application, March 1994, Table 3-6a; Appen. C, Fugitive Emission Sources. 32 ATC Application, March 1994, Table 3-6. 33 Reduction in VOC emissions using double sealed pumps- = (19 pumps) (1.24 lb/day/pump - 0.147 lb/day/pump) (365 days/yr) (ton/2000 lb) = 3.79 tons/yr. 34 SCAQMD, Unocal FEIR, Vol. III. 35 BAAQMD, BACT Workbook. Guidelines for Best Available Control Technology, Working Draft, March 1993 , p. 137. 36 ATC Application, March 1994 , Table 3-6a. 01018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 20 The County could require that Unocal follow standard industry practice and equip all new PRVs with rupture disks and vent them to a vapor recovery system. This would reduce VOC emissions by 1.71 tons/yr.37 Rupture disks have been required for all reformulated gasoline projects in the SCAQMD, including Unocal's project.'° The BAAQMD SACT guidelines also specify a rupture disk with venting to a fuel gas recovery system, furnace, or flare with a recovery/destruction efficiency greater than or equal . to 98 percent.39 4. Sampling Systems Periodic checks of process operations are made by sampling process streams. Process fluids contained in sample lines must be purged prior to sampling to obtain representative samples. The project includes six new low hold-up sample valves, which emit about ten times more VOCs than other widely used sampling system because they are easier to use and require less maintenance than the lower emitting sample systems.40 Emissions from sampling systems can be almost completed eliminated by using closed loop or closed purge sampling systems where the purged VOCs are returned to the process or sent to a control device.41 The County could require that Unocal use standard closed loop sampling systems. This would reduce VOC emissions by 0.78 37 Reduction in VOC emissions using controlled PRVs = (4 PRVs) (2.36 lb/day/PRV - 0.013 lb/day/PRV) (365 days/yr) (ton/20.00 lb) = 1.71 tons/yr. 30 SCAQMD, Unocal FEIR, Vol. III. 39 BAAQMD, BACT .Workbook. Guidelines for Best Available Control Technology, Working Draft, March 1993, p. 135. 1. 40 ATC Application, March 1994, Table 3--6a and p. 7-3 . 41 U.S. EPA, Fuctitive Emission sources of Organic Compounds -- Additional Information on Emissions. Emission Reductions, and Costs, EPA-450/3-82, 010, April 1982 , p. 4-57 and U.S. EPA, Emission Factors for Equipment Leaks of VOC (Volatile Organic Compound) and HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants) , EPA-450/3- 86-002 , January 1986, pp. 2-15 - 2-16. C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 21 tons/yr42 and has been required for all reformulated gasoline projects in the SCAQMD, including Unocal's project,43 and is required by federal New Source Performance Standards." IX. BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY POR TOXICS, MUST BE APPLIED TO THE PROJECT The BAAQMD and CARB risk management policies require that Best Available Control Technology for Toxics ("TBACT") must be applied when the cancer risk exceed 1 x 10-6. The project cancer risk at the residential MEI is 1.33 x 10-6. (DEIR, p. 9-16. ) Thus, TBACT is required. Although the DEIR states that Unocal plans to apply TBACT to new and modified facilities (DEIR, p. 9- 14) , there is nothing in the DEIR or the ATC Application that would require TBACT. (DEIR, Section 2. ) The BAAQMD has defined TRACT, for fugitive emissions to be the combination of the following: i. Lower leak detection limit (e.g. 500 ppm vs. 10,000 ppm) . ii. More frequent inspection period (e.g. monthly vs. quarterly) . iii. Shorter repair period (e.g. 7 days vs. 15 days. )43 The fugitive emissions estimates in the DEIR (DEIR, Table 8- 15) assume quarterly inspection and maintenance and a 15 day repair period for pumps based on current regulations (e.g. , BAAQMD Regulations 8-18 and 8-25) . The ATC Application does not indicate that TBACT would be implemented 46 and, in fact, erroneously claims that "SACT is more stringent than TBACT, 42 Reduction in VOC emissions using double sealed pumps = (6 sample valves) (0.792 lb/day/valve - 0.079 lb/day/valve) (365 days/yr) (ton/2000 lb) = 0.78 tons/yr. 43 SCAQMD, Unocal FEIR, Vol. III. 44 40 CFR Part 60, subpart GGG; and subpart VV, § 60.482-5. 45 BAAQMD, Permit Handbook, July 6, 1992, Chapter 37, p. 37- 6% 46 ATC Application, March 1994, Section 7. C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 22 therefore TRACT has been met."47 Obviously, this is incorrect for fugitives, and may also be incorrect for other project components. . The DEIR should be modified to find that toxic emissions exceed the BAAQMD's significance threshold of 1 x 10-6 for TRACT and require that TRACT be installed. The DEIR also should specify what constitutes TRACT.. S. THE DRAFT EIR UNDERESTIMATED TOXIC EMISSIONS AND RESULTING HEALTH RISKS A. Duct burner toxic emission factors Toxic emissions from the -increased firing of the duct burner were estimated using a duct burner with SCR and CO catalyst from the WSPA Emission Database.48 Ten of the pollutants evaluated are designated as "NA", which is defined as "Not Applicable." This suggests that the source test either dial not measure or did . not detect ten pollutants, including acetaldehyde, *arsenic, *cadmium, *copper, *formaldehyde, *hexavalent chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium. Five of these (indicated by an asterisk) were included in the risk assessment.49 It is contrary to common experience to conclude that none of these ten compounds would be present in emissions from the duct burner. The duct burners are combustion sources that are fired on refinery fuel gas. Numerous source tests on combustion units fired on refinery fuel gas indicate that these ten substances are present,SO including the Shell source test used for the new hydrogen plant heater. If these constituents were not measured, emission factors should be taken from other combustion sources fired on similar 47 ATC Application, March 1994, Attachment E, Volume II, Health Risk Assessment, pp. 6-3 and 6-4. , 46 ATC Application, March 1994, Appendix C, Combustion Sources. 49 ATC Application, Attachment E, Volume II, Risk Assessment, Table 5-1. se Western States Petroleum Association, Emission Database, June 1992 . C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 23 . fuel gas as was properly done when extrapolating the Shell source test to the new hydrogen plan heater. If these constituents were not detected, CARB guidelines require that one-half the detection limit be used in risk assessment.sl In either case, the toxic emission estimates and risk assessment must be modified to reflect accurate emissions from the duct. burner modifications. B. Marine terminal The project includes an additional 12 tanker trips per year to transport gasoline blending stocks and oxygenates between Unocal's San Francisco and Los Angeles refineries.S2 (DEIR, p. 3-37. ) This would result in combustion emissions and loading emissions. Ships and their tug assists normally burn diesel fuel." Combustion of diesel in heavy-duty internal combustion engines such as those in ships is known to be a major source of metals, particularly hexavalent chromium, as well as benzene, 1,3- butadiene, hydrogen chloride, PAHs, propylene, aldehydes," phenols, xylenes, . and hydrogen cyanide." The Ventura County si Letter from Genevieve Shiroma, GARB, to William J. Roddy, Air Pollution Control Officer, Re: Treatment of Testing Data Below the Limit of Detection, August 16, 1990. 52 As we discuss above, the true number of additional tanker trips appears to be 48 rather than 12. SD ATC Application, March 1994, Table 3-7. s` Carnot, Emissions of Air Toxic 'Species: Test Conducted Under AB2588 for the Western States Petroleum Association, May 1990; ENSR Consulting and Engineering, Pooled Source Emission Test Report: Oil and Gas Production Combustion Sources. Fresno and Ventura Counties, California, January 1991. ss W.E. Pepelko, R.M. Danner, N.A. Clarke (Eds. ) Health Effects of Diesel Engine Emission: Proceedings of an International Symposium, Volume 1, U.S. EPA Report EPA-600/9-80- 057a, November 1980; Terry L. Ullman and Charles T. Hare, Emission Characterization of an Alcohol/Diesel-Pilot Fueled Compression-Ignition Engine and its Heavy-Duty Diesel Counterpart, U.S. EPA Report EPA-460/3-81-023 , August 1981, p. 4, C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 24 APCD published emission factors for diesel-fired internal combustion enginesS6 and the SCAQMD has emission factors for distillate oil #2 (diesel fuel) . Additional emissions also would be released during loading and unloading of the cargo. Loading emissions would include benzene, toluene, and hydrogen sulfide, among others. Although annual average emissions may be small, peak hourly emissions would_ be substantial and should be included in the acute health impact analysis. The risk assessment should be revised to include ship combustion and loading emissions from the marine terminal. The average combustion emission factors measured in the Carnot and ENSR source tests, cited in footnotes above, or the factors developed by the SCAQMD or Ventura APCD should be used to estimate emissions. Loading emissions could be readily estimated from existing chemical speciation data and loading VOC emissions using Raoult's law. BI. INCREASED USE OF OXYGENATES MAY CAUSE ODOR AND HEALTH IMPACTS The project would substantially increase the handling of methyl tertiary butyl ether . ("MTBE") and ethyl tertiary butyl ether ("ETBE") to meet the CARB Phase II .oxygen limit. These oxygenates would be stored in tanks 112 and :1007, which are close to the boundary of the refinery. Gasoline with these additives would be stored in new tanks 111 and 113, which are also close to refinery boundaries. Oxygenates may cause adverse health impacts and are odoriferous. A. Odor The DEIR concludes that the project would not result in any odor impacts without performing any analyses whatsoever. (DEIR, pp. 8-36 to 8-37. ) The project would increase the use of oxygenates, which are known to odoriferous." Oxygenates would Table 1; Terry L. Ullman and Charles T. Hare, Heavy-Duty Diesel Emission as a Function of Alternate Fuels, U.S. EPA Report 460/3- 83-004, September 1983 . ss Ventura County APCD, December 30, 1992. S' C.R. Angle, If the Tap Water Smells Foul, Think MTBE, Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 266, 1991, pp. 2985-2986. C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 25 be present in fugitive emissions from: (1) these four tanks; (2) new valves, flanges, and pumps in the blending facilities; and (3) many existing valves, flanges, and pumps in the blending facility and existing gasoline storage tanks because the average concentration of oxygenate in the internal streams would increase as a result of the project. These emissions could be substantial and should be evaluated to determine if they would cause odor impacts. B. Health impacts MTBE is listed as a Hazardous Air Pollutant in the federal Clean Air Act. (42 U.S.C. §7412 (b) (1) . ) The legislative history of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 states that MTBE may pose a significant threat to public health and the combustion of MTBE may significantly increase formaldehyde emissions. Formaldehyde is a potent human carcinogen and a highly reactive precursor to ozone. (6 USCAAN p. 3502 (1990) . ) Workers at the marine terminal and in the gasoline blending section of the refinery may be exposed to high concentrations of MTBE, which could result in significant adverse health effects. In addition, attendants at gasoline stations, other workers who handle reformulated gasolines, and motorists would be exposed to MTBE. One study, for example, found that customers filling their vehicles at service stations were exposed to 0.04 to 38 ppm of MTBE.58 Additional exposures would occur from tailpipe and evaporative emissions while operating motor vehicles. Although some studies of the health effects of MTBE on rats have been conducted, studies of the effects of MTBE on human health are very limited.S9 Industrial hygiene studies conducted by Texaco in 1991 indicate that a marketing terminal and a refinery that handle both MTBE and blended gasoline have experienced employee complaints. Truck drivers who delivered blended gasoline also complained of adverse symptoms. The complaints centered around odor, headaches, and sometimes nausea. se Clayton Environmental Consultants., Gasoline Vapor Exposure Assessment for the American Petroleum Institute, July 2 , 1991. S9 J. S. Duffy, J. A. Del Pup, and J. J. Kneiss, Toxicological Evaluation of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) : Testing Performed Under TSCA Consent Agreement, Journal of Soil Contamination, v. 1, no. 1, 1992, pp. 29-37. C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 26 Lockmen loading MTBE complained of indigestion following. . exposure..60 The State of Alaska suspended the sale of MTBE-blended gasoline in December 1992 and launched an investigation of its health effects with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") following 500 documented cases of health problems after MTBE-blended gasolines were introduced in Fairbanks and Anchorage.61. The study included interviews with taxi-cab drivers and health-care workers in Fairbanks, who routinely travel in motor vehicles, and used university students as a control group. The initial investigations indicate that 38 percent of the taxi drivers, 28 percent of 'the health-care workers, and 14 percent of the university students had symptoms that included headache, cough, nose or throat burning, eye irritation, nausea or vomiting, and 11spaciness. ,63,64 A similar study conducted in Anchorage found that 48 percent of the taxi drivers and 26 and 28 percent of two separate groups of health-care workers had similar symptoms. No control group was included in the Anchorage study.,65,66 The CDC study. found 60 Kenneth L. Dille, Texaco, Inc. , Texaco's Experience with Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether, May 15, 1991. 61 Possible Oxy-Fuel Health Scandal, U.S. Oil Week, v. 29, no. 47, December 7, 1992, p. 1. 62 Senators Call for MTBE Testing; Use of Alaska Oxy-Fuel Program Questioned, Alcohol Week's New Fuels Report, v. 14, no. 11, March 15, 1993. 63 John Middaugh, MD (Ed. ) , Evaluation of Health Effects from Exposure to Oxygenated Fuel in Fairbanks, Bulletin No. 26, State of Alaska, Epidemiology, December 22, 1992. , 64 Michael Beller and John Middaugh, Evaluation of Potential Illness Due to Exposure to 0Menated Fuels,, Fairbanks, Alaska, Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, December 11, 1992. 65 John Middaugh (Ed. ) , Potential Illness Due to Exposure to Oxygenated Fuel, Anchorage, Alaska, State of ,Alaska Epidemiology Bulletin, Bulletin No. 1, January 6, 1993 . C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 27 measurable concentrations of MTBE in the blood of persons in Alaska who were occupationally exposed to motor vehicle exhaust and/or gasoline fumes containing MTBE and concluded that "blood MTBE concentrations are strongly associated with environmental exposure to MTBE."67 Similar complaints have been lodged in other areas where oxygenated fuels have been used. In Pennsylvania, for example, oil jobbers exposed to MTBE blends during loading and unloading of tankwagons lacking Stage 1 vapor recovery have also complained of headaches and dizziness.68 Similar complaints have been lodged with CARB by employees of gasoline stations after MTBE- blended gasoline was introduced into the California market.69 Texaco measured MTBE concentrations that workers were exposed to in an MTBE plant, refineries, marketing terminals, and at a marine terminal. The results of these analyses, summarized in Table 1, indicate that many workers were routinely exposed to very high concentrations of MTBE. Similar results were reported .by ARCO for its Channelview, Texas MTBE Plant.70 Motorists filling their vehicles at service stations also are routinely exposed to high concentrations of MTBE.71 66 Bruce Chandler and John Middaugh, Preliminary Evaluation of Potential Illness Due to Exposure to Oxygenated Fuels, Anchorage, Alaska, State of Alaska, Dept. of Health and Social Services, December 23, 1992. 67 Ronald L. Moolenaar, Brockton J. Hefflin, David L. Ashley, and Ruth A. Etzel, MTBE Concentrations in Human Blood Following Exposure to Oxygenated Fuel, CDC Interim Report, February 1993. 6e possible Oxy-Fuel Health Scandal, U.S. Oil Week, v. 29, no. 47, December 7, 1992, p. 1. 69 personal communication with Lucille Saloum, M.D. , Research Division, GARB, January 14, 1993. 70 Letter Report from Joan L. McCuen, ARCO, to Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA Re: Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether Exposure Monitoring Study, April 24, 1987. 71 Clayton Environmental Consultants, July 2, 1991, Table 2 .4 . C1018.003 Takla worker 2XV08 re to M3N,! in Ons-4-1 plan". Assis"UM, and mala Number Mean Ram oo MTBE Plant. Routine Exposure Head Operator 9 0.48 0.01 - 1.76 operator 34 0.54 0.01 - 3.83 Operator Salpar 8 0.14 0.01 - 1.00 Boilermaker 3 0.86 0.05 - 2.48 Pipafittar 6 6.17 0.05 - 33.4 Laboratory Staff- 1 0.06 - mM Plant. Short-Term Exposure Activity Not specified 2 0.01 0.01 Draininq small Amount 5 11.7 0.16 - 45.0 Samplinq 14 1.47 0.16 7.80 MTSS Plant. Area samples ActiVity Not Specified 20 0.50 0.02 - 4.40 sample Collection Point 9 0.12 0.01 - 0.33 Tank ran 12 1.96 0.02 - 10.0 Pumprooa on Unit 2 0.03 0.02 - 0.04 control Room 1 0.02 up a Tower 2 0.07 0.07 Lab Test Bench 2 0.02 0.02 Sump 3 0.02 0.02 - 0.03 riltar Area 1 0.06 - Nest to a Pot, Vessel, or Reactor 14 0.19 0.01 - 0.9 Reflnery MTBl unit. Routine Exposure roreaan 2 0.20 0.20 Read operator 8 0.84 0.03 - 6.00 operator 14 0.74 0.02 - 3.40 operator 8elper 18 2.34 0.02 - 27.0 Nontoeaaieal riald Staff 1 1.00 - Yrotessional Laboratory staff 1 14 - Tecnnical Laboratory Staff 12 0.33 0.04 - 1.56 Nontecanieal Laboratory Staff 5 0.38 0.04 - 1.20 Battle Masher 9 31 0.2 - 249 Laboratory Technician 20.2 0.2 Industrial Sygianist 3 0.7 0.2 - t.3 Ret3nery MTBE Hatt. Short-T*rm Exposure Activity Not Specified 2 2.5 2.00 - 3.00 Loadinq 1 8.67 Unloading 6 9.25 0.20 - 28.0 Manual Gauginq 19 15.6 0.02 - 140 Saapliaq 2 0.45 0.40 - 0.50 Testinq" 5 0.04 0.04 Mashinq Bottles 2 41 28 - 54 Laboratory Analysis 9 5.6 5.6 Saaplinq 2 5.6 5.6 Reflnery MM unit. Area samples Dock 3 68.9 0.03 - 191 Marksclnq Yaro nal. Routine Exposure Foreman 4 0.56 0.02 - 1.00 clerical 1 1.00 - Operator 16 - 1.64 0.06 - 6.20 Marketing To Taal. Short-Term Exposure Loadinq 4 0.55 0.02 - 1.00 Unloadinq 6 2.05 0.14 - 5.87 Manual Gauginq 6 0.27 0.02 - 0.40 Saspllnq 1 1.32 - TOSCUqL 2 1.17 0.75 - 1.60 Miscellaneous 3 0.12 0.06 - 0.16 Marketinq Terminal, Area Samples Bottom of Loadinq Rack W/ Vapor Racovary 1 1.00 Marine MTSL. Routine Exposure Barge operator 14 15.1 3.70 - 59.4 Marine MTBE. Short-Yarm Exposure Manual Gaaginq 16 130 3.40 - 352 Sources Kenneth L. Dille. Texaco. Texaco•s Expersence with Mothyl Tartiary-Butyl Ether, May 15. Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 29 These results suggest that workers at Unocal's refinery, others who handle, transport and dispense reformulated gasoline, as well as motorists may be exposed to high concentrations of MTBE. This exposure may cause significant adverse health impacts. The potential impact to workers and the public due to acute and chronic exposures to MTBE should be fully disclosed in the EIR and measures recommended to minimize the .impact. The significance of these elevated concentrations is presently uncertain because OSHA, the EPA, and other agencies that normally set worker exposure limits and ambient air quality standards have not yet established standards for MTBE. However, the health effects documented in Alaska and elsewhere support the view that relatively low concentrations of MTBE cause adverse effects in sensitive individuals. The U.S. Coast Guard has . established a TLV/TWA for MTBE of 0.25 ppm.72 This concentration is routinely exceeded by many other workers who handle MTBE and MTBE-blended products, including pipefitters, operators, laboratory staff, barge operators, and those involved An loading and unloading (Table 1) as well as motorists.73 Because the project would significantly increase the amount of MTBE released by the refinery and from vehicles fueled with Unocal's reformulated gasoline in amounts that can reasonably be expected to exceed 0.25 ppm, the project could have an adverse impact on workers and the general public. This would be a significant impact. The EIR should be revised to include mitigation. For worker impacts, this could include the use of suitable respirators and other protective measures for all workers who would be routinely exposed to more than 0.25 ppm MTBE, based on a continuing industrial hygiene sampling program that would include personal and ambient sampling. Public exposures are more problematic because it is not practical to require millions. of drivers to wear respirators in their automobiles and at service stations. We understand that additional studies on the effects of MTBE will- be conducted by the EPA with industry participation.'' The results of these studies should be used to revisit the decision to allow the use 72 U.S. Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard, Chemical Data Guide for Bulk Shipment by Water, Report CIM 16616.6A, 1990, p. 207. 77 Clayton Environmental Consultants, July 2, 1991. 74 The Wall Street Journal, March 5, 1993 , p. B1. C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 30 of MTBE as an oxygenate. Ultimately, MTBE may have to be replaced with an oxygenate that does not result in adverse health effects in the general population. In the interim, prudent measures to safeguard human health should be taken. BII. .INCREASE IN SELENIUM DISCHARGES WOULD RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT WATER QUALITY IMPACT The DEIR concludes that there would be no increased discharge of selenium because the project would not modify the two units that produce most of the sour water and the project would not increase the amount of sour water produced. Thus, the DEIR claims that selenium discharge would not increase. (DEIR, p. 6-47. ) However, further analysis is needed to properly evaluate this conclusion. Selenium is released during a number of refining processes, including hydrocracking and hydrotreating. A study conducted at Unocal's San Francisco Refinery ("SFR") in :1989 indicates that several units that produce selenium would be modified by the project." The project would divert intermediate products to diesel and jet fuel production. Jet fuel is produced in the Unisar (U-248) , which is a hydrotreater, and diesel in the Mid Barrel Blend (U-76) . (DEIR, Figure 3-6. ) Additionally, ten new tanks would be added. (DEIR, p. 3-35. ) The Unocal study indicates that these are potential sources of selenium in Unocal's wastewaters.76 Therefore the project could increase the mass of selenium in wastewaters. Because Unocal currently violates its ,selenium permit limit by a wide margin, an increase in the discharge of selenium would increase an existing exceedance of a permit limit, which is a significant impact. The DEIR assumes, based on a settlement agreement adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, that Unocal is excused from meeting its final permit limit on the discharge of selenium. That final permit limit would restrict Unocal's discharge of selenium to a running annual average limit of 0.85 pounds per day ("lb/day") and a daily maximum 75 Letter from J.R. Dietzman, Unocal, to Steven R. Ritchie, RWQCB, Re: Selenium Source Study, Unocal - San Francisco Refinery, NPDES Permit No. CA 0005053 , March 23 , 1989. (Attachment 1. ) 76 Letter from J.R. Dietzman, Unocal, to Steven R. ritchie, RWQCB, Re: Selenium Source Study, Unocal - San Francisco Refinery, NPDES Permit No. CA 0005053 , March 23 , 1989 , Figure 1. C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 31 concentration of 50 ug/L until July 31, 1998. The DEIR reports that Unocal has exceeded its interim limit of 4.4 lbs/day only three times in November 1991. (DEIR, pp. 6-32 to 6-33. ) However, after the DEIR was prepared, environmental groups. sued to reverse the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board's- adoption of the settlement agreement in Cease and Desist Order 94-015." United States District Court Judge Henderson ruled that the final permit limit is still in effect. Thus, Unocal's current discharges in excess of that limit violates its permit.78 Thus, instead of three violations in November 1991, the Unocal San Francisco Refinery has exceeded its running annual average permit limit of 0.85 lbs/day and its daily maximum concentration limit of 50 ug/L on selenium every day since December 12, 1993 and continues to do s0.79 The DEIR indicates that Unocal's discharge currently exceeds the selenium maximum concentration limit of 50 ug/L by a factor of three to six (150 to 310 ug/L) . (DEIR, Table 6-5. ) The Regional Water Quality Control Board has already determined that these discharges result in significant water quality impacts.80 Because the project could increase the discharge of selenium from increased processing of jet and diesel fuel, the project could exacerbate the violations of the permit limits on discharge of selenium. According to the standards set forth in the DEIR (DEIR, p. 6-42) , this is a significant water quality impact. In addition, the project also may substantially increase the amount of selenium in wastewaters by increasing hydrotreating and hydrocracking to meet the new sulfur limit on gasoline. Unocal states that its gasoline currently meets the CARB Phase II sulfur limit because SFR has sufficient hydrotreating desulfurization capacity for all gasoline blend stocks.8' If true, this is probably the main reason that Unocal discharges two to 94 times 77 Citizens for a Better Environment v. Union Oil Company of California, (N.D.Cal. No. C94 0712) March 2 , 1994 . 78 Ibid. , July 8, 1994. 79 Union Oil Company of California, Self Monitoring Reports, December 1993 to June 1994 . 80 RWQCB, Mass Emission Reduction Strategy for Selenium, Staff Report, October 12, 1992. °i ATC Application, March 1994 , p. 2-5 . C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 32 more selenium per barrel of oil refined (32.9 lb/BBL) than any other Bay Area refiner (0.35 to .17.8 lb/BBL) .8s However, the County should assume the Unocal will respect the Court's decision that it is violating its selenium discharge limit and will take steps to comply with its permit limit. one way that Unocal could comply would be to reduce the desulfurization of gasoline and other blendstocks until .acceptable wastewater treatment methods are online. In that case, Unocal would have to subsequently increase the desulfurization of blendstocks to comply with CARB Phase II reformulated gasoline requirements. Thus, the resulting increase in selenium would be a direct result of the project. If hydrocracking and hydrotreating were reduced to comply with the law and subsequently increased to meet CARB Phase II sulfur specification, selenium would be partitioned into wastewaters and could cause a significant impact on water quality. Chemically, selenium is similar to sulfur. Like sulfur, it is removed during hydrocracking and hydrotreating83 and is partitioned into sour waters. However, unlike sulfur, it is not significantly removed in the sour water strippers and downstream treatment units and is typically discharged with refinery wastewaters, although some .is removed by certain types of biological treatment.84 As discussed above, the project may substantially increase hydrocracking and hydrotreating, which remove selenium from the feed and partition it into the wastewaters. Dan Glaze of Shell Oil testified under oath before the San Francisco RWQCB in 1992 that there: was almost a perfect correlation between the operation of certain units, the hydrotreating units, the ones you saw that remove sulfur and to (sic] make clean gasoline, the operation of those units, when they're up, they create sulfur and selenium, when they're down, es Citizens for a Better. Environment, Dirty Crude, March 1994, Figure 5. 83 Testimony of Dan Glaze, Shell Oil Co. , to the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, December 16, 1992, pp. 72-73 . 84 Testimony of Charles Meyor, Shell Development Company, Houston, Texas, to the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, December 16, 1992 , p. 24-34 . C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 33 they don't.. . . . Those same hydrotreating processes will release more. sulfur and selenium. Mr. Glaze also testified that the production of cleaner gasoline would produce more selenium in refinery wastewaters.•' Studies conducted at Unocal's San Francisco Refinery clearly show that hydrotreating and hydrocracking currently are sources of selenium in its wastewaters." Because the project would increase the discharge of selenium, the project would exacerbate the violations of the permit limits on discharge of selenium. According to the standards set forth in the DEIR (DEIR, p. 6-42) , this is a significant water quality impact. Therefore, selenium discharges as a result of the project may be significant. This significant impact was not revealed in the DEIR and should.be mitigated. XIII. THE DRAFT EIR DID NOT EVALUATE THE IMPACTS OF HANDLING AND TRANSPORTING HAZARDOUS WASTES The DEIR lists and quantifies four classes of hazardous wastes that would be generated by the project .(DEIR, Table 11-3) , but fails to evaluate the potential impact to handling these wastes on refinery workers and of transporting these wastes through residential areas. (DEIR, p. 11-16. ) The project would increase the generation of several RCRA listed wastes, including leaded tank bottoms (K052) from 10 new tanks, primary oil/water/solids separation sludges (F037) from increased process water sewers installed to connect the project components to the existing refinery (DEIR, p. 3-38) and heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge (K050) from the new Hydrogen Plant, among others. These are all RCRA listed hazardous wastes that must be removed from the units in which they accumulate and transported to a permitted Class I treatment, storage, and disposal facility. Workers may be exposed to hazardous constituents during maintenance of units where they accumulate and when the wastes are removed from process units. The public may be exposed to releases if an accident were to occur en route. Increased es Testimony. of Dan Glaze, Shell Oil Co. , to the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, December 16, 1992, pp. 72-73. ea Letter from J.R. Dietzman, Unocal, to Steven R. Ritchie, RWQCB, Re: Selenium Source Study Unocal - San Francisco Refinery, NPDES Permit No.CA 0005053 , March 23, 1989. (Attachment 1. ) C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 34 traffic and criteria and toxic emissions would result from transporting the wastes to off-site disposal. Finally, although disposal capacity is limited, the DEIR did not disclose where these wastes would be disposed. None of these impacts were disclosed in the DEIR. For example, primary sludges accumulate in sewer lines, manholes, junction boxes, catch basins, and other sewer appurtenances and are not routinely removed and disposed because of the expense of cleaning out these facilities. If these facilities are not cleaned out, workers carrying out routine maintenance and inspection of sewer facilities could be exposed to these wastes. This is a significant impact that should be mitigated by requiring periodic and regular cleaning ofsewer facilities. The DEIR should be revised to separately identify individual hazardous wastes and to discuss and evaluate the impact of handling and transporting these wastes on workers and the public. XIV. THE DRAFT EIR FAILED TO EVALUATE THE IMPACTS OF THE ]PROJECT ON WORKERS AT THE UNOCAL REFINERY This project could cause several potential significant impacts to workers at the Unocal refinery. Construction workers could be exposed to contaminated soil and groundwater (DEIR, p. 6-34) , onsite .workers will have the greatest exposure to increased emissions of toxic air contaminants during operation of the project (DEIR, p. 9-18) , and they will be among the most at risk from accidents at the refinery (DEIR, § 11, scenarios 2, 3 , 5, 7) . Workers could also be exposed to increased hazardous wastes in the refinery sewer system. Yet the DEIR did not consider the impacts of the project to workers at the refinery. This violates CEQA and deprives these workers of potential mitigation measures from-which they could uniquely benefit. There should be no question that as EI:R should analyze and propose mitigation for impacts to onsite workers. A. Onsite Impacts Are Covered By CECLA CEQA protects the onsite "environment. " If a project would damage wetlands onsite, damage the habitat of a protected plant or animal onsite, damage archeological resources onsite, damage h.istorical resources onsite, damage paleontological resources onsite, or convert prime agricultural land onsite to non- C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 35 agricultural use, CEQA requires consideration of the onsite impact. (State CEQA Guideline, Appen. G.) All of these undisputed onsite impacts are part of the "environment" which must be evaluated in an EIR. This is the natural result of the State CEQA Guidelines (§ 15360) , which define the "environment" as including the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. The area involved shall be the area in which significant effects would occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the project. The "environment" includes both natural and man-made conditions. [Emphasis added. ] Nothing in this definition suggests that damage to the "environment" on the site of a project is not part of "the area" which is protected by CEQA. Surely, if a project would contaminate the soil onsite by dumping hazardous waste into open pits, this could be a significant impact. Contaminating the people onsite is no less protected. In fact, CEQA makes special effort to protect people from adverse environmental impacts. The statute specifically requires a finding of a significant adverse impact where the project will "cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. " (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (c) . ) Thus, CEQA does not distinguish between onsite and offsite impacts, and covers them both. B. Impacts To Workers Are Covered By CEOA The DEIR itself evaluates the increased cancer risk to offsite workers (DEIR, p. 9-16) , and does not explain why it excluded consideration of impacts to onsite workers. There are state and federal OSHA laws which apply to both onsite and offsite workers. However, nothing in federal or state OSHA law removes impacts to workers from consideration under CEQA. The mere existence of a regulatory program covering the same sort of environmental impacts as covered by CEQA does not remove those impacts from consideration under CEQA. CEQA covers many areas that are also governed by specific regulations. For example, CEQA covers air quality despite all of the federal and C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 36 state laws and the air district regulations governing air pollutant emissions. CEQA protects surface and ground water quality despite state and regional water quality control board regulation which restricts discharges to surface and ground water. CEQA protects soil from contamination with hazardous waste despite federal and state EPA regulations limiting storage and disposal of hazardous waste. CEQA protects endangered species of plants and animals despite specific federal and state law in the area. CEQA protects wetlands despite regulation by the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers. And CEQA governs noise impacts from a project despite widespread local ordinances limiting noise. Thus, simply because occupational safety and health laws exist, does not put the protection of workers outside the scope of CEQA's protection. Accordingly, CEQA protects workers just as it protects all other groups of people and environmental resources, even though there are also occupational safety and health laws. Since CEQA also protects both the onsite and offsite impacts environment, CEQA protects workers wherever they happen to work. C. Impacts To Onsite Workers Must Be Separately Addressed So That Mitigation Can Be Proposed The DEIR does not find that there will be any significant impacts in the areas of exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater, air toxics, risk of upset or hazardous waste. However, if the impacts to onsite workers were considered, those conclusions would likely change. As a result, the EIR could consider and propose measures to avoid or lessen those impacts. This is important .to protect the lives and health of onsite workers -- the group at greatest risk from the refinery. Therefore, the EIR must address the potential environmental impacts to onsite workers from the project. BV. SHIPPING ACCIDENTS COULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT WATER QUALITY, AQUATIC LIFE, AND RISX OF UPSET IMPACTS The DEIR concludes that ship accidents, would not result in any significant impacts because accidental spills would have a "remote" likelihood of occurrence and therefore would be less than significant, "no matter what the level, of severity. " (DEIR, pp. 6-41, 7-25, 11757. ) This conclusion is apparently based in part on the conclusion that 24 ship, movements is a tiny fraction of the total of 88, 000 annual ship movements in the Bay. (DEIR, pp. 6-42, 11-57 . ) C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 37 This is contrary- to common sense. Although the likelihood of a major spill may be small, its consequences could be devastating. The Bay Area is the nation's seventh busiest region for petroleum shipments, and the Bay is considered one of the riskiest areas in the U.S. due to shallow waters, narrow shipping lanes, numerous bridges, and fog. Near misses are common and it is generally believed that a single shipping accident on the Bay could trigger an "environmental Armageddon. ,67 A large spill would halt all Bay traffic, resulting in substantial economic damage to Bay Area industries. San Francisco Bay contains 90 percent of all California coastal wetlands, which could sustain extensive damage. The North Bay, where the majority of the petroleum- related shipping occurs, is a key nursery area and migratory route for numerous fish species, including striped bass, several races of salmon, and sturgeon, and home to several threatened and endangered species including the California clapper rail, salt marsh harvest mouse, delta smelt, and winter-run salmon. The analysis in the DEIR that concludes that spilled materials would be diluted and degraded (DEIR, p. 7-30) is contrary to experience as evidenced by the substantial damage from the Exxon Valdez spill. The consequences of a major accident could be catastrophic and should be found to be significant even if the likelihood of the event is remote. ZVI. THE DEIR DID NOT PROPERLY EVALUATE CUKULATIVE SHIP ACCIDENTS The DEIR dismissed cumulative ship accidents because "[m]ost events of this type would be totally independent of one another in terms of timing, spatial characteristics, magnitude, and the contaminants associated with any specific release, and thus would have no cumulative relationships and cumulative impacts. " (DEIR, p. 19-16. ) This analysis does not comply with CEQA. The cumulative impact from increased ship traffic is not the increased likelihood that two new tankers will collide with each other or will have simultaneous accidents. Rather, it is the potential that additional shipping will contribute to an increased probability of an accident. The DEIR failed to consider that increased shipping from Unocal and other projects may cumulatively increase the likelihood of an accident. An 87 Robert Oakes, Near-misses Raise Fears of Disaster on Bay, Contra Costa Times, March 28, 1994 , p. 6A. C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 38 increase in the likelihood of accidents could result in a significant impact. The DEIR failed to consider this possibility. At least one project, located immediately adjacent to Unocal's marine terminal, would substantially increase marine traffic. The Wickland Terminal Expansion would nearly double tanker traffic at the Wickland Terminal from 146 to 246 one-way trips per year or by 200 ship movements per year.80 UnocallIs project would increase ship movements by at least 24 (DEIR, p. 6- 42) to 96 ship movements per year.09 These two projects . combined would increase ship movements by at least 224 ship movements per year. Using the same data and procedures as in the DEIR, this would result in 0.38 to 0.50 incidents per year, or one incident every 2 to 3 years, or 10 to 15 incidents over the 30 year life of the project.90 It would appear that 10 to 15 incidents, where incident includes accidents that could result in spills to the Bay, would constitute a significant impact, particularly given the fact that these incidents could be catastrophic. The DEIR should be revised to evaluate cumulative water quality, aquatic life impacts, and risk of upset impacts resulting from ship accidents and should find these impacts to be significant because the likelihood of incidents is cumulatively greater than "remote" and their consequences are potentially catastrophic. XVII. THE DRAFT EIR SHOULD BE RECIRCULATED The Unocal project is large and technically complex. It will cost at least one hundred million dollars and require construction of several new or modified refinery process and support units, the impacts from any one of which would justify its own EIR. The project will substantially increase the storage and shipping of various products. Moreover, the project involves 0° City of Martinez, Draft Environmental Impact Report. Wickland Oil Martinez Marine Terminal Expansio , July 1994, pp. II-19, II1-121. °9 SCAQMD, Unocal FEIR, Vol. 1, pp. 2-25, 2-26. 90 Number of incidents = (1.7 incidents per 1000 ship movements) (224 ship movements) = 0.38 incidents per year. (DEIR, pp. 11-56 to 11-57 . ) C1018.003 Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 39 processes which are, by their nature, highly stressful to the environment, The refinery and the marine terminal are already among the largest sources of criteria and toxic air pollution in the Bay Area. In these circumstances, it is extremely important that the public have the opportunity to comment on the County's analysis of all of the potential significant impacts of the project. Because of the flaws in the DEIR and the failure of-the DEIR to provide support for its summary of environmental impacts, the EIR must be recirculated to provide that opportunity. The Public Resources Code provides for recirculation of an EIR, as follows: When significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 and consultation has occurred pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153, but prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice Again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report. (§ 21092.1, emphasis supplied. ) The revisions to the EIR which are necessary will require that "significant new information" be added to the EIR. The Supreme Court has recently clarified the standards for determining when the information added to an EIR is "significant." The Court held that recirculation is required, for example, when the new information added to an EIR discloses: (1) a new substantial environmental impact resulting from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented [citations omitted] ; (2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance [citations omitted] ; (3) a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that clearly would lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but which the project's proponents decline to adopt [citations omitted] ; or (4) that the draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that public comment on the draft was in effect meaningless [citations omitted] . C1018.003- Catherine Kutsuris July 25, 1994 Page 40 . (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 231, 240.) Each of these four reasons for recirculation applies here. In these comments, we have identified a number of significant environmental impacts which were omitted from the DEIR and must be added. These impacts include impacts on air quality from emissions of VOCs from soil during construction, discharge of selenium during operation, shipping accidents, and impacts to onsite workers. We have identified a substantial increase in the severity of the air quality impacts from a quadrupling the emissions from the project at the marine terminal and from properly estimating emissions from the project. We have identified a number of feasible mitigation measures for the air quality impacts of the project. We have also demonstrated that the DEIR was so summary in nature that it was impossible to evaluate the analysis of several potentially significant impacts. The EIR should be revised to include a imore complete and more accurate analysis. and a new draft EIR should be circulated for public comment. XVIII. REQUEST FOR NOTICE Please provide me with notice of all future hearings, public notices, approvals or actions regarding this project. Sincerely, Marc D. Joseph MDJ:cwt Enclosure cc: Doyle Williams C1018.003 --1---^...�� .... (Jnaoa11ta1h+ieN�,ftarftatMO Dtr.aion K.C. G U Z+ !; u�oca�Coepoaoofi Safi Ffimmoo iaailn y Aoeao.CaWomia"512 Tjl�phOfia(115)799.4111 -RTIFIED TURN . RECEIPT REQUESTED UNOCA L S Mv4W.San Fra=W4 A*&WY March 23 , 1989 JRD-111-8 9. Regional Water Quality control Board Sar. Francisco Bay Region 1111 Jackson Street, Room 6040 Oakland, California 94607 Attention: Stever. R. Ritchie Dear Mr. Ritchie: SELENIUM SOURCE STUDY UNOCAL - SAN FRANCISCO REFINMY NPDES PERMIT NO. CA 0005053 As deq�wired in our NPDES permit, Provision D.S .B, we are submitting our, progress report for investigating "all reasonable treatment and source control measures to limit the discharge of selenium" . This progress report satisfies the April 1, 1989 deadline to "determine sources and develop a source control and treatment assessment program. . . . , for selenium in waste 0021 . sampling of Waste 002 and potential upstream sources for selenium content was conducted from April-August 1987 . The results are summarized on the attached Figures 1 and 2 and Table 1 . This sampling effort indicates that the major source of selenium is from the Coking. Unit, which contributes 85% of the selenium to the bioplant. A secondary source of selenium Is D-911 Sour water Stripper, although the majority of selenium ( 63%) from this source is removed in the API/DAF. Presently, approximately two-thirds of the selenium entering wastewater Unit 100 is removed through treatment. Our review of potential treatment methods to remove selenium from wastewater has identified only one process which, we believe, can feasibly achieve very low levels of selenium. This process is UNIPURE, which was developed by Unocal' s Chemical Division. we are Mr. Steven R. Ritchie =2 JRD-111-89 March 23 , 1989 continuing our investigation of the UNIPURE process for removing selenium in the final effluent and various upstream sources. This scope of work includes additional bench scale laboratory work and the operation of an on-site pilot plant. A 25 gpm UNIPURE pilot plant has been constructed. and is currently being installed on-site mor a six-month test period. We intend to evaluate this process on the. final effluent and several upstream sources. The upstream sources selected will. depend on the: results of bench scale laboratory testing. We estimate that pilot plant operation will commence in mid-April. A more complete description of the UNIPURE pilot plant study was submitted in our letter of December 5, 1988 (JRD-340-88) . If you have any questions , or wish to schedule a meeting to discuss this matter further, please contact either Messrs. P. C. Stara or K. E. Guziak at (415 )799-4411. I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments are prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel . properly gathered and , evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the ;person or persons who managed the system, or those parsons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, trio, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and i.�nprisonment for knowing violations . (40 CFR 122. 22(d) ] Very. truly yours, R. DI ZMAN Refinery Manager PCS/bc Attachments cc: M. D. Drennan - RWQCB r r (n � 1 1 LQ . 1 � I I I ' � I I 1 I 1 ��R �C 1 O NrW Ifi Z ,,r71 I r 1 N I I I `W 1 W r ,• . ~ W4t r %� .,_� N 1 1 QI C� 000 O. rnQ" 1 I I I 1 � � Z W4 ' 1 , N O DOn C41 cn On O E I coo 0 OFF) 0 4. z I a to evn iY •� , _ � r a I � 1 rry� � � l0 000 VV 0CG IGI ' z � I• ------- al? 0 co- (9 o -©( e O. 0 v � � � • '_ � I ^�tti N i E al sin. 9' - < f� R I n r n rnnn �+ n^� I 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 I I I I I t7� t .ca ' 4 as c O oa O Os a i N` v► % O04 , � O N ce � � v � o rZ r TABLE 1 SELENIUM LOADING/REMOVAL SUMMARY UNOCAL - SAN SIANCISCO REFINERY UNTREATED STREAMS SUMMARY Average Se % Load (lb/d) of Total MP-30 Trunk Line 2 .1 28 Tormey Hill Trunk Line 0 .12 2 Lower Tank Farm Sump 0 . 10 1 West Refinery Trunk Line 0. 09 1 Segregated Phenolic Water 5 . 1 68 UNIT 100 STREAMS SUMMARY DAF Outlet 0 .89 is Segregated Phenolic water 5 . 1 85 E-002 2 . 8 - SE__NIUM REMOVAL SUMMARY Load (lb/d ) % Se In Ou: Removed AP_/DAF 2 . 4 0 . 89 63 BioplanL 6 .0 2:;3 53 Un It l00 7 . 5 PCStern/bc San Francisco Refinery N co *j y rd� IT! 1C,: z •a�� �: :4 Z x1 Cvil O � 1 t i to _ M r j" +�' ,; F � rix• cv.4 a � z i.,t.� e t *cc o dC F -ate 23 a ................................. ...................... bd 1 zcz 0Z 1 el ld • � Q � i I .wQp � CI •�I r ` I�Ir r TISlr—(ft mcnfvi%i cq G at �� '�.� � = ~�+�C' w-? � 1 '•J'a � � ..'� a GC G.G Z`�JItW?•Z}1 U� M u �s �ar F.� �0 �O oc r N� r r. YN 5� (� o �./ a o00 • o s. v O N a00 Ila It p /meq o{ g e ON o ooe a f es_ C C pKK C�i. �:.K f � � O tl ♦ Q�N G , xxcm t s- Si. N in 17711� ego G ai E! ��axcr�rtiUi +^ Y� 1 v 92 Z t� ggs O e 1 :DAD:.NG/REMOVAL SUMMAF.v :'NCU-7 - SAN ra.NC=SCG RE='Y�c•. ;;V•'RsA:_D S'REA.,4$ SUMMARY. Average Se Load _b/d S of �....A .orrney Hill Trunk -rine 0 „ 12 2 -cwe r Tank Farm Sump 0 . 10 i wes z Refinery Trunk Line 0 .09 1 Segre;a=ed Phenolic Warcer 5 . 1 68 yl%;y._. 4.00 STREAMS SUMMARY DAF valet 0 . 69 15 Segrecated Phenolic Water 5 . 1 85 £-�vZ 2 . 8 - REMOVAL SUMMARY Load ;,:b/d ) Se �.7 Out Removed APr/DA3' 2. 4 0 . 36 63 6 .0 2. 8 •53 UnIt 100 7 . 5 2. 8 63 ” FCSterz/bc , San Francisco Refinery SvLTr.---„ST:-;P CU' ;Tv MANAGEMENTIC77 .: ..� Easi"z;ev Ur;va. �:a+'ncr.c Ear.CA o?765 Appiim 2813r PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT Pam I Granted as of 11/03/1993 Legal Owni r ID 088892 or Operator- UNOCAL CORP,UNION OIL CO OF CAL UNIT 38 P.OBOX 6206 CARSON.CA 90749-6206 Equipment L,oeation: 1520 E SEPULVEDA BLVD. CARSON. CA 90745 Equipment Description: HYDROGEN.CHARGE HEATER.-1M-H-1.KTI,MAXIMUM RATING 22 MM-BTU/HR WRTH 8 CALL TYPE L-E-CSG-W LOW-NOx BURNERS.FUEL GAS FIRED. Conditions: L OPERATION OF THIS EQUIPMENT SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALJ AND SPECIFICATIONS SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION UNDER WHICH THIS PER ISSUED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED BELOW. 2 THIS EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND KEPT IN GOOD OPERAT1Nt CONDITION AT ALL TIMES. 3. THE MAXIMUM FIRING RATE FOR TILS HEATER SHALL NOT EXCEED 22 MM-BTU/HR RECORDS OF THE FUEL RATE AND HEATING VALUE OF THE FUEL GAS SHALL BE KE MAINTAINED FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS AND BE MADE AVAILABLE TO AUTHOREM DISTRICT PERSONNEL UPON REQUEST. 4. THIS HEATER SHALL BE FIRED WITH FUEL GAS EXCLUSIVELY. THE TERM'FUEL GA: DEFINED IN THIS PERMIT MEANS EITHER REFINERY GAS,OR VAPORIZED LPG,OR NATURAL GAS.OR ANY COMBINATION THEREOF,WITH A TOTAL SULFUR CONTENT PPMV CALCULATED AS H2S. S. FUEL GAS BURNED IN THIS HEATER SHALLNOT CONTAIN HYDROGEN SUFL.IDE IN E: OF 230 MG/DSCF(0.10 GR/DSCF),US FPA NSPS,40 CFR SUBPART J,SECTION 60.104. 6. THE TOTAL SULFUR CONTENT OF THE FUEL GAS SUPPLIED TO THIS HEATER SHAt t i MONITORED BY A CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM (CENTS). THE TOTA REDUCED SULFUR, CALCULATED AS H2S.IN THE FUEL GAS SHALL NOT FXCEED 40 PI. AVERAGED CONSECUTIVE 15-MINUTE PERIOD. THIS CEMS SHALL COMPLY WITH THI PROVISIONS OF 40 CFR PART 60 APPENDICES B AND F. IN ADDITION.THIS CEMS AND r =_CUTr�=AST =!moi OUnLI T Y MANAGiEMEMi'0'S i-:C' �C.'. .:I v:.Cl@V{ICN@. l:uT:CRO Ear.CAG,765 A 57 PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT Page 2 METER SYSTEM SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSED DISTRICT RECLAIM RULE 201L 7. THIS HEATER SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH AN OXYGEN ANALYZER TO MEASURE EXM! AT ITS CONVECTION SECTION OR EXHAUST STACK THE EXCESS OXYGEN SHALL BE WI, THE RANGE OF 1 TO 6 PERCENT,DRY BASIS,EXCEPT DURING EXCURSIONS NOT TO EXC 10 MINUTE DURATION AND DURING STARTUP AND SHUTDOWN. 8. THE CERTIFIED GEMS AND FUEL METER SYSTEM IN CONDITION 6 SHALL BE USED TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THE LIMITS SET k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•IN THE DISTRICT'RULE 304(k),AND A DESCRIPTION OF All.SAMPLI AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES TO BE USED. (D) THE TEST SHALL DETERMINE THE NOx CONCENTRATION FROM THE OUTLET OF TM EXHAUST STACK THE TEST SHALL ALSO DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING EMISSIONS FROLS THE EXHAUST STACK OUTLET. SOx,CO.ROG.PM1Q,TOTAL PARTICULATES:AND EXCESS OXYGEN,MOISTURE,AND FLUE GAS FLOW RATE. (E7 THE TEST SHALL REPORT THE FOLLOWING IN PPM AND IN LB/HR:NOx,(ALSO IN LB/MM-BTU OF HEAT INPUT),SOx,AND CO. THE TEST SHALL.ALSO REPORT ROG AND PIV IN L.B/HR,TOTAL PARTICULATES IN GRAINS/SCF AT 12%CO2.AND FUEL GAS USAGE IN SCF/HR. (F) ALL CONCENTRATIONS OF GASEOUS EMISSIONS SHALL BE EXPRESSED IN PPM BY VOLUME CORRECTED TO 3%OXYGEN,DRY BASIS,AND SHALT.BE MEASURED ON A 15 ' CONSECUTIVE MINUTE AVERAGE TIME PERIOD. (G) THE TEST SHALL BE CONDUCTED AND THE RESULTS REPORTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST METHODS SET FORTH IN 40 CFR PART 60,APPENDIX A(I.ATEST EDITON). (I) THE DISTRICT SHALL BE NOTIFIED (TO THE A7rE"TnON OF SENIOR MANAGER., REFINERY AND OCS TEAM)OF THE DATE AND TIME OF THE TEST AT in n e vc vol =01.J r. C;:, X17!MANAGEMENT C'S;nICT = e..5 East Ccz.zr C;nve. L.afnonc Sar. CA ir;785 �PPiintian N Z$1367 PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT Page 3 i TO THE TEST. 1 (I) SAMPLING FACILTITES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE ATTACHED DISTRICT'GUIDEUM FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SAMPLING AND TESTING FACMMES'PURSUANT TO RULE 2X7.. 10. UNOCAL SHALL USE CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM(CEMS)OR CONTINUOUS PROCESS MONITORING SYSTEM(CPMS)TO MEASURE NOx EMISSIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RECLAIM RULE 2012. 11. THE CERTIFIED NOx CEMS OR CPMS SHALL.BE USED TO DETERMINE NOx COMPLIANCE WITH THE LIMITS SET FORTH IN CONDITION 13. 12. UNOCAL SHALL PROVIDE A HEAT-TRACED INSULATED SAMPLING LINE FROM THE SAMPLI PORT OF THIS HEATER/HEATER TRAIN FINAL DISCHARGE STACK LEADING TO GROUND. LEVEL. 13. TETE EMISSION FROM THE EYHAUST STACK SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MORE STRINGENT OF THE FOL LOWING: (A) PPMV CM OZ DRY(AVERAGED OVER ANY 15 CONSECUTIVE:vtINUTES): 1. NOx-30(CEMS OR CPMS&TO BE CONFIRMED BY SOURCE TESTING) SOx- 10(CEMS&TO BE CONFIRMED BY SOURCE TESTING) CO-50(TO BE CONFIRMED BY SOURCE TESTING) (B) LB./HR(TO BE CONFIRMED BY SOURCE TESTING) NOx-0.66 SOx-0.14 CO.020 ROG-0.15 PM-0.45 14. UNOCAL.SHALL COMPLY WITH REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS OF40 CFR SUBPART J,SECTION 60.107,TITLE V,AND DISTRICT RECLAIM RULES 2011 AND M12- Approvai or denial of this application for permit to operate the above equipment will be made after an inspection to determine if the equipment has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and if thz equipment can be operated in compliance with all Rules of the South Coast Air Quality Manacement District- Please notify NGOC IRAN at(714)396-2606 when construction of equipment is complete. =^"��"^AS i C A i N MANAGEMENT CGS RC' _ as mono Glu L„ t765 Appiicadoa 281357 PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT Paye 4 This Permit to Construct is based on the pians.specifications and data,submitted as it pertains to the relesse of air contaminants and control measures or reduce air contaminants No approval or opinion concerning safety and other factors in design,construction or operation of the equipment is expressed or implied. This Permit to Constntct shall serve as a temporary Permit to Operate provided the Executive Officer is given prior notice of such intent to operate. This Permit to Construct will become invalid if the Permit to Operate is denied or if the application is—n=lled 1111 PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT SHALL EXPIRE ONE YEAR FROM TfIE DATE OF ISSUANCE tiairss an eaeasia is granted by the Ezecuuve Officer. By DORRIS M.BAILEY Principal Office a citta t DMB Jnt r AUGUST 1993 SCH No. 93011013 Draft Environmental -Impact Report Air Quality Technical Attachment Volume III: Project Emission Rates For UNOCAL LOS ANGELES REFINERY WILMINGTON AND CARSON PLANTS REFORMULATED GASOLINE PROJECT SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT i Prepared by ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING i I g�IgTfNES (GEN�t�I 1 1 1 i 1 S 1 1 i 1 PROPOSED EMISSION FACTORS FOR FUGITIVE XZW SOm MfITS WITH SACT i) RAr April 16, 1993 New Source unit Service Emission Rate w/ W/ BACT 500 ppm Monthly jam (lbValves Sealed Bellows Gas/vapor and 0 (A) light liquid Live loaded with dual Gas/vapor 38 (8) Seal system or low Light liquid 25 (B) emission valves X500 ppm heavy liquid 3 (B) ". .r-�-•Pumps Sealless type Light liquid 0 (C) Double or tandem mach. Light liquid 104 (D) seal w/ barrier fluid & closed vent system Single mach. seal Heavy liquid 80 (D) w/ flush cooling hot Compressors Closed vent system Gas/vapor 514 (E) Flanges ANSI/API- All 2.5 (F) Standards Me Rupture disc & closed All 0 (G) vent system (process vessels) Rupture disc it All 2.5 (G) applicable (pressure vessels) Process Drains P-trap or seal pot liquid 80 (H) iNotes: (A) and (C) Assume 100% control efficiency for sealless equipment, but it can be a large source of . emission in the event of equipment failure. (B) EPA-450/3-81-015a except heavy liquid. (D) , (E) , (H) Assume an 80t reduction from Form R-3 . r.rr (F) Assume a 50% reduction from Form R-3 . (G) Assume 100% control eff. under normal operating conditions. SACT Guidelines for f`ugitiva Emission sources rtA for Refinary Clean Duals Projects APR 1 6 '83 Now source unit service Comments Valves Sealed Bellows Gas/vapor and Cost affective for Liqht liquid 2". and smaller in. size except in the fallowing servieos _. •.. . (see Note 1) Valves Live loaded w/ Gds/vapor and 4500with dual seal, or Light liquid monthly/quarterly I & M (Note 2) Low emissions All 5500 ppm with. valves <500 ppm monthly/quarterly I S K (Nota 2) Pumps Sealless type Light ,liquid EPA HSPS Subpart - GGGI & M Pumps Double or tandem Liqht liquid 5500 ppm with seal w/ barrier quarterly UM (Kota O fluid and closed 3) vent system Pumps Single mach. Rot heavy <500 ppm with seal w/ flush liquid quarterly I&K (Note coolinq 2) Compressors Closed vent Gas/vapor 5500 ppm with system quarterly $&K rlanges ANSI/API All 5500 ppm with Standards monthly/quarterly IhM PRVS 'Rupture disc and All EPA NOS Subpart' closed vent GGG (Nota 3) system (process vessels) PRVs Rupture disc if All EPA HSPS subpart applicable GGG (Note 3) (Pressure vessels) t� •�� Ir Process Grains P-trap or seal EPA HSPS Subpart J pot QQQ sampling connections EPA Hays Subpart Closed purge ow system or closed vent system . Open-ended valves or lines ELBA Naps Subpart- $quipped with a GGC cap, blind flange or a second valve : (1) 2" and smaller Bellows Sealed Valves for gas/vapor- and • light liquid services sxeept• ins o Heavy liquid service - o Control valve applications o Instrument piping/tubing o Applications where valve failure could pass a sarety hazard (e.g. drain valves witkL valve stem in horizontal position), o Retrofit applications where space limitations preclude their use o valve applications requiring torsional motion and cannot be replaced with gate or globe valves. (2) Use repair schedule .of Rule 1173 or EPA NSPS .Subpart- =G whichever is more stringent. (3) Equivalent Control Technology - an applicant may propose to use any control technology other than the BACT required by the District if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed control technology can .reduce air pollutants as effectively, or more effectively than the required BACT. Unocal Petroleum Products&Chemicals Division ' Unocal Corporation .1380 San Pablo Avenue Rodeo,California 94572 Telephone(510)799-4411 UNOCAL 66 December 5, 1994 ACR-35-94 Dear Board of Supervisors: More than anything else, the Catacarb® incident has taught us all the importance of having ongoing, open relationships with those who live and work around our facility. The. Catacarb® incident should never have happened. I believe there are lessons to be learned from this incident; therefore, we chose to release a summary of the results of our internal investigation and corrective action plan. These documents were shared with you, as well as local community leaders and all employees at our plant to both understand what happened and help prevent a similar incident from occurring in -the future. Although it is difficult to try to establish relationships after the Catacarb® incident, we feel it is important to meet face-to- face with community members to understand their concerns. I am hopeful that the following attachments demonstrate our commitment to properly respond to concerns over the catacarb incident, and more importantly to build a long term, working relationship with our neighbors: A Chronology of community meetings B Summary of community programs Regarding the reformulated gasoline project, I have enclosed our reasons for appealing permit conditions #76-79, as well as responses to others' appeals. We do believe the project will provide significant benefits to Contra Costa County and we urge your support. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding our community programs or reformulated gasoline project. sincerely, ALLEN C. RANDLE Acting General Manager 4) 0) �o CL 0 V d O O N of O v W uNi L J Y Q CO U N O O d N !•_ toE U Q — 41 _N H .-. ON N U U C N c o r a r B d c a L u a E o ,tf E L m o $ U E m E ' —; '8 °' co U U Q d U o - o 1 0 d E O Z` c y to to = E C � N E Uov) N Q cc = U U.U) S U a v w aa) v °= aci w a 'S v N C = Q O N L Q 'O c _ N �a U 10 d (� fa 7 a1 7 t`/ `1 7 'C O c C Z o 0 N 0 .6 .0 U c u u E � m O E a� a� E S N c E C H n o � -Em E c C Oc c E U a a E E E EE E c � MWE r W E cu J 7 ca L N 1Uca O U 0 0 Q0' " E -I U LU o _ = 2 a U U - z = E E = O d c x> OO O O O o O YO R4 . W U le L UJO >, m o00 O cc D m U 0: w w a: m m U U U u Z Z LU D 0LL0 H V QO Q C C N t CD c 0 m � U cc 0 ON W w w 'O cnn U U N a O Co r pr �+ C n O. E E p C E l` t a d d d d LL?3i d m d c N m e Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z m co=o in C7 OO0N O0=ON O O O O On0CO On0CO On0CO v$> .,$> c oc E U�T A D 0) ai ai ai ai ai a a�W fc Uy c oc o Cl a a aaaaa a a v E a) d a) d v a) a) aD �N ) 0 o O L U � tc a a N Otc= N N N N co N N Y L U V U a n ca ca ca ca ca ca ca ca ca C L_ U C C C E L = C p v cis m m 3 E v =iNca EaU0 o �' £> > a E m c -oE E Emoyc" c tc � it Ix w tr W ly m 0 O U Q0' Z U U U U U U u tD O M O O N O OV � (O TCM N N r co r-- rl n r- r- 00 rn rn am rn rn rn rn rn r o o a N N c a i _ o N N TM E g Q m w w `° L � m U U U O N Q Q = N Q C C Q O E E V1 E > > C N p e e eLU g o a o 0 Q E E E . 0 Z c m aei ' Y Y O a) d 0 U U V V , m m e c o e . Wm l{Cpp U U U U fa U Y Y L je Q d c c E N C a Qw l9 N N L S Z a S N cola la G J C - _ __ 0) CO N S L 'C a N c O E. N a) E 0. m t y m r m > E vO m o m o o E> £ m E m m o U Y U m U C m U w U y m U m U U c U y *5 ii � o!S > a_ _ °o _ ad ii ii �� m a ar U as � � u EQ) UYU UY v=S .000 w U=mN U UodN oC1 � � Yom Yy Y iu co� ai naoo tq � �. 00 (n Yz0ao � aa) ( ci 3 E ' _ O d OpO -y J m S w V) m ° mmO w 0: -1 �l m :e S Z a Ep J O y ua0 N O al O 4) C13 a) d a) O a 2 o m >+ O .(D U- Y •C L Y 2 a > EQO a fO o 'a U o 0 o O o , 2 0 Q - ) _ U o Q U Y U U U N N N N N N 7 7 7 v v a c c � 0 0 0 CL n a 0 0 0 o W = c 'a H o >+ v o w U .0 O1 I C c O C C C N C G C a) .0 -e Q. E a) Y r c W tE Uc Eo .rl E c O L r a7 a) O g N a) y a) 7 m c m aC y a) C N y y Ny y CN Cy mN U G Caa E N T d d al e e o m m d d rn ecQroN LozOal l yC d C rn o, d`OoE Q N Q ) cc mm CL aQ Q od) U o ` d � o c E o o O N L NL CL OO n L o = O��cj' ' . . cm cm Ol mg6U S 'lo oc cc o EZ z Z dN a )U " o O o`= o 4I oNN U 0 N N o N N E N c W U 0 z cA a 0 w V) C7 Q > co C� fo`- C7 w w U U > 0 w U 0 2 U a w H N N co N •'N N M t` sf C 0 — — .-- — F — F F e- e- — — - — — e- F FF r F F •"- r r r r !� r r F r r r r r r r F r r r r a) om c O a v Q a c C9 U O N N Q _ 4 d E a) E 4, Q w y a E O L. Eaci Z N U H O p v w N J Y ~ a - E f4 N t a 0 U 1 0 ru v 0 E U d > o v Z N v 0 =° v o w w w ani C E m X O c NT m m m o c o U w E 2 3 E m U U U m l E 0 c� ca as ca LL, La N o c _ o o a o o d t c o mZ 0 o mo oU[ mai VaE Ix m w 0 Ev } mE }ac meo mOaa a) LD LL = YY 0. -z m O p p O O O d U U O a) la L - u) 0) C N a) E N U H N N a) cn L 7 N C d f0 H G C d a) y O CL cL w a E 8 4) 0) n o c CD CD c rn c d v > o m m m E ca _ d c U d N w+ c d c c >+ m g to N E o N E a E z E ayi E E p c �o Z aUi y c ani m m U- v E E c a, m o W `p) W rn " ea w a rn v, o pc (nM> L Q E L Q Q Q Q Q N U O .. — y o >_ Q �a a y 1) a o V m a .0 m c Q .T. = Of 3 O = O) U t6 J Ol U O) 01 w •T_. t c .E a� n £ d w D d c E d 'c c a c Z T N . Z O Z N Z Z > > d wrn E EEUvhmUvdo a E c o v U co U aD o o E E o m cN N c U U o U 0 S m In 0 w 0 CD U U o m E c fw-' N r r •`(V f7 to In In (D C a0 N) C N .N- N .N- CNN N N t6 C ATTACHMENT B SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY PROGRAMS Outlined below is a summary of Unocal's public outreach programs. These programs have been undertaken in an effort to build a long term, open relationship with our neighbors, as well as respond to concerns about safety, notification systems and resolving claims. Good Neighbor Agreement: The goal of these meetings is to reach consensus on a good neighbor agreement between Unocal and the communities of Crockett and Rodeo. To ensure that the community was comfortable with Unocal's commitment in this area, Unocal willingly signed an "Agreement to Negotiate" in good faith with the community. Several working groups comprised of Unocal and community members have also been established to discuss and hammer out the details of the agreement. While Unocal is hopeful that an agreement will be reached shortly, the community has requested that many topics be included in the agreement. Discussing each topic fully may require meetings beyond December 13, 1994. If this is the case, Unocal will continue to negotitate in good faith. Community Advisory Panel: Under the leadership of Supervisor Jeff Smith, a community advisory panel was formed including representatives of Crockett, Rodeo and Tormey. The panel will serve as a continuing forum for greater input and dialogue between the community and Unocal. Health Concerns: Unocal continues to respond to all community health claims and concerns, including cooperating fully with an independent Department of Health Services investigation. As of Tuesday, November 8, Unocal also opened .a temporary medical clinic in Crockett to respond to individual's specific questions and concerns. The clinic is staffed by an independent medical expert specializing in the field of toxicology and environmental medicine. To fully understand the short and long term health affects, Unocal initiated a health risk assessment (HRA) working group including representatives from the community, an independent HRA expert selected by the community, a member of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union, the Department of Health Services, an independent HRA expert selected by Unocal, and a Unocal doctor and toxicologist. Results will be shared with the community. Independent Auditor: Unocal will, at company expense, hire an independent auditor, selected by the community and mutually agreeable to Unocal, who will perform an independent audit of the facility's notification procedures, ernergency response plan, and safety management program. The.results of the audit will be made public, and Unocal is committed to responding to any concerns raised by the report. Contribution to Hillcrest School: On October 20, Unocal donated $378,000 to Hillcrest School to make significant improvements in warning systems and "shelter-in- place" at the school. The school decided to use the money to make facility improvements, including installing weather stripping improvements and upgrading doors and windows. - (! ) Monitor placed at Hillcrest School: Unocal also installed an on-site monitor at Hillcrest to allow the school to be aware if an airborne release has occurred and take appropriate action. Enhancing Community Safety Through Education: Unocal has been working with the Community Awareness and Emergency Response (CAER) organization to educate communities about emergency response and shelter-in-place, which is a way of protecting yourself in the event of a chemical release. Presentations on Shelter-in-Place: Unocal and other CAER representatives gave presentations on shelter-in-place to Hillcrest School on November 2 and will continue to conduct these seminars to other neighborhood schools, senior centers, day care facilities, and community groups. Unocal has produced an instructional video on shelter-in-place which will be reviewed by local emergency response personnel. When finalized, Unocal will mail the video to community households in Rodeo, Crockett and Tormey. Improving Notification Systems: Unocal is contributing $250,000 toward Community Warning System, a program that will directly benefit our neighbors by dramatically improving community notification capability in the event of an emergency release. The target date for completion of this new Community Warning System is December 1995. In the event of an.emergency, the Community Warning System will be capable of: o Linking directly with all major local television, radio, and cable TV stations. o Activating sirens audible to residents within approximately one mile of each major industrial facility in Contra Costa County, including Unocal. o Initiating the current automated emergency dialing system, a computerized telephone system which delivers messages to businesses and neighborhood residences in the event of an emergency. o Connecting to CALTRANS' planned digital highway signs, allowing emergency messages to alert motorists along the highway. #684 Unocal Petroleum Products&Chemicals Division - Unocal Corporation 1380 San Pablo Avenue Rodeo,California 94572 Telephone(510)799-4411 - UNOCAL �6 I December 5, 1994 ACR-39-.94 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors County Administrative Building 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors : Unocal' s Response To Appeal Of Shoreline Environmental Alliance To Land Use Permit No. 2038-93 Union Oil Company of California ("Unocal") respectfully submits this response to Shoreline Environmental Alliance' s ("SEA" ) appeal of the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission to approve Unocal ' s Land Use Permit No. 2038- 93 for the Reformulated Gasoline Project ("Project") at Unocal' s San Francisco Refinery ("Refinery") . Unocal continues to work diligently with -representatives of the local community to address the issues raised in SEA' s appeal . Unocal and representatives from the community signed an Agreement to Negotiate in good faith on November 28, 1994, and Unocal is committed to continue and support that negotiation process independent of the proceedings related to the Land Use Permit for the Project. Whereas Unocal and the. community have reached an understanding regarding several of the issues raised in SEA' s appeal, other issues remain outstanding. Some of these issues are discussed in Unocal ' s separate appeal of certain permit conditions, submitted concurrently with this letter. REMOTE MONITORING IS NOT THE BEST OR MOST ACCURATE MEANS OF MONITORING EMISSIONS FROM THE REFINERY SEA appeals on the ground that condition No. 76, addressing fenceline monitoring, is insufficient to protect the health and safety of the community. SEA argues that remote testing and public access to monitoring should be added as conditions of approval of the permit for the Project. Unocal has addressed the issue of fenceline monitoring and public access to monitoring results in its appeal . SEA's appeal, however, does merit an additional response. December 5, 1994 ACR-39-94 Page 2 Unocal is committed to put in place a monitoring system that will serve the needs of the community. Given the current state of technology, however, Unocal believes that a test program should precede any installation of monitoring instrumentation. Unocal has agreed to proceed to design and implement a test monitoring program to determine whether the data collected by available equipment is reliable and dependable. The program, and the criteria by which it will be measured, will be designed by Unocal together with representatives from the local community. Unocal has also agreed to share all data gathered from the test monitoring program. Unocal will prepare a report at the conclusion of the test program for the County Planning Commission and. will share that report with the community as well. If the results of the test program support the conclusion that a full- scale monitoring system is feasible, then Unocal will design and install the monitoring system. Until Unocal and other Bay Area refiners know more about the reliability of available monitoring devices, it would be unwise and counterproductive to proceed with fenceline or other monitoring systems. As such, Unocal believes the prudent course is to revisit the issue of monitoring after the test program has been completed and the data has been analyzed and considered along with other available information. Only then can the best choice for monitoring devices be made by Unocal, together with representatives from the community. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CONSIDERED ALL POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON THE LOCAL POPULATION FROM THE PROJECT AND DETERMINED THAT NO INCREASED HEALTH RISKS WOULD RESULT SEA contends that some area residents may have become chemically sensitive as a result of the catacarb release at the Refinery. Unocal is concerned about any health problems that community members may be suffering as a result of the release, and is working in the community to investigate and address the needs of those who may have been affected. SEA further contends that the EIR prepared by the County fails to consider potential impacts from the Project on sensitive area residents. Unocal strongly disagrees. The EIR produced for the Project by the County' s consultant represents a comprehensive and thorough analysis of all potential environmental impacts . The purpose of evaluating environmental impacts is to determine whether feasible mitigation measures exist to reduce those impacts . All risks of upset, transportation and emissions from the Refinery related to the Project were researched and analyzed. As a result of this process, numerous mitigation measures were identified and incorporated into the Project. These mitigation measures reduce the risk .of significant impacts to the maximum extent feasible. December 5, 1994 ACR-39-94 Page 3 Although the catacarb release had not yet occurred at the time the EIR was prepared, the potential impacts from the refinery on the local population had been thoroughly analyzed. Thus, SEA' s assertion that further analysis of potential impacts of the Project need to be conducted is without foundation. Irrespective of the release, all potential human health hazards from the Project have been identified, analyzed, and mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, further analysis is not warranted. THE EPA REPORT CONCERNING MTBE CONCLUDED THAT MTBE POSED NO PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD AND WAS NO WORSE THAN NONOXYGENATED GASOLINE SEA argues that EPA' s November 1994 report on Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) constitutes "new evidence" of a new significant environmental impact requiring recirculation of the Project EIR. The Project proposes to increase current use of MTBE as a blendstock in gasoline in order to meet the oxygenate standards imposed by the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") pursuant to state law. Contrary to SEA' s assertion, the EPA report does not constitute new information regarding a significant environmental impact, and therefore recirculation of the EIR for public comment and review is inappropriate. According to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the implementing Guidelines, new information may require the preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR when the new information shows that the project "will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. " Public Resources Code § 21166; 14 CCR 15162 (a) (3) (A) . The EPA report, however, does not constitute new information not previously discussed in the EIR. Nor does it indicate that MTBE will have a significant environmental effect. Accordingly, the EPA report does not require preparation of a supplemental EIR, or recirculation of the Final EIR for the Project. MTBE is presently used in several cities and states across the nation as an oxygenate blend for gasoline. It is primarily used to reduce automobile emissions of carbon monoxide, a regulated air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The Project EIR discussed the potential impacts of MTBE in Response to comments submitted by Adams and Broadwell, counsel for the Plumbers and Steamfitters Union, which has also appealed the Commission's decision. The EIR responded that the potential health effects from MTBE are subject to .debate, but that the State of California has concluded that MTBE in gasoline "does not present an unacceptable health effect on consumers and service station operators. Final EIR, Response to Comments, 2-174 . The EIR concluded that "until the scientific community reaches some consensus concerning the potential toxic effects of MTBE, we cannot pro.ject health affects due to its use . " 2-174 (citing the Guidelines, § 15145) . December 5, 1994 ACR-39-94 Page 4 The EPA Report does not contain new information about a significant environmental impact from the blending of MTBE in gasoline. Therefore, there is no basis for requiring further review and circulation of the EIR to consider this report, as argued by SEA. The EPA Report was drafted from limited studies of "current scientific information- about potential health risks of MTBE. " Report at 3. The EPA report itself states that " [t]he current evaluation must be considered to be preliminary until additional data are considered. " Report at 28-29. The report concluded that: At the present time and on a tentative basis, there is no reason to say there is a serious carcinogenicity public health hazard from the inhalation of MTBE, although some hazard is possible and necessarily should be further evaluated. Although unfinished, the current carcinogenicity assessment supports a hazard classification of "possible" human carcinogen, based upon "limited" animal evidence . . . Crudely estimated dose-response analyses suggest that the potency of MTBE would be relatively low. [MTBE] is being added to a gasoline, which itself has a whole-mixture hazard classification of "probable" human carcinogen and a relatively low estimated potency. Although it is not known what effect the addition of MTBE has on the carcinogenic activity of the oxyfuel mixture, the MTBE component itself seems to be no worse than the nonoxygenated gasoline mixture. Report at 46 (emphasis added) . Thus, it is clear from the report' s own conclusion that it is a tentative evaluation, based on limited information, and intended to be preliminary in nature. Furthermore, the report concludes that although MTBE is a "Possible" carcinogen, when blended into gasoline, which is a "probable" carcinogen, is poses no worse of a health threat than gasoline as currently formulated. Finally, it is important to note that the EPA Report addressed only risks of MTBE to the general public, and not people in occupations with higher exposures to oxyfuels. Report at 3. Accordingly, no "new" information regarding potential health effects to on-site personnel is contained in the Report. In conclusion, it is clear that the Final EIR considered the question of potential health risks associated with MTB9 and concluded that evaluation of such risks would constitute mere speculation in light of the present scientific knowledge. CEQA does not require lead agencies to perform such acts of speculation. 14 CCR § 15145. Because there is no new information contained in the EPA Report regarding new significant impacts from the project, recirculation of the EIR is not authorized. December 5, 1994 ACR-39-94 Page 5 THE DEFINITION OF GOOD FAITH IS SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR TO PERMIT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO EVALUATE THE CONDUCT OF UNOCAL AND THE COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY IF THE DECISION IS DEEMED APPEALABLE TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AS PROVIDED IN THE COUNTY CODE SEA appeals conditions No. 78 on the grounds that the "good faith" standard of review to be applied by the Zoning Administrator is vague and without guidance. Unocal believes that the "good faith" standard is sufficiently clear to permit the Zoning Administrator to carry out his/her duties pursuant to these conditions. In any event, Unocal and the community have reached an Agreement to Negotiate in good faith, and that agreement contains a mutually agreed upon definition of good faith. Unocal has entered into this agreement with the community and does not object to inclusion of the definition of good faith in condition No. 78 if so desired by SEA. SEA also argues that condition No. 78 is inappropriate because it requires the Zoning Administrator to make a decision in an area where he or she has no expertise. Unocal does not object to the. Zoning Administrator as the person to determine the good faith of the parties . Unocal, however, supports the communities' desire to have the decision made by a person with expertise in the subject matter of the appeal . SEA'S ATTEMPT TO RAISE "FURTHER GROUNDS" FOR THE APPEAL BY INCORPORATING ITS NOVEMBER 15, 1994 LETTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION VIOLATES CEQA AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED SEA sent a letter to the County Planning Commission office on November 15, 1994 with comments on the draft EIR. The comment period on the draft EIR, however, closed on July 25, 1994 . According to Public Resources Code § 21178 . 1 (e) , which specifically applies to reformulated gasoline projects such as Unocal ' s project: Any comment concerning the adequacy of a negative declaration or environmental impact report which is not received by the lead agency within the 45- day comment period, within any extended review period, or at a public hearing held after the expiration of the 45-day period, shall not be considered part of the record before the lead agency in considering a project approval . This requirement was added to preclude last minute challenges to the sufficiency of an EIR, and is commensurate with other provisions added to CEQA specifically for application to reformulated gasoline projects to assure the timely consideration and review of these publicly beneficial and important projects . December 5, 1994 ACR-39-94 Page 6 Nonetheless, Unocal will respond briefly to the arguments raised by SEA in its November 15, 1994 letter to the Planning Commission. Most of the arguments raised by SEA merely echo comments submitted by Adams and Broadwell on the Draft EIR during the comment period. These comments were fully addressed in the Final EIR "Response to Comments" chapter, as well as Unocal ' s letter to the Planning Commission, dated October 11, 1994 . SEA raises two additional arguments in its late submission. The first concerns the analysis in the EIR of cumulative impacts. SEA argues that the EIR only considered cumulative impacts from future, and not present and past, projects . SEA is incorrect. The EIR fully addressed all potential health risks from the Project against the background of existing conditions . Thus, past and present risks are fully accounted for in the EIR's analysis of potential impacts. Although the cumulative risk section of the EIR focuses on additional risks that can be expected from proposed future projects, it builds upon the analysis in the body of the EIR, which fully addresses any risks from the Project in its present context. Thus, all potential impacts have been fully considered. The other new issue raised by SEA concerns the substitutability of ETBE for MTBE as an oxygenate for gasoline. SEA contends that ETBE would be a superior choice because it is . made, in part, from agricultural resources, which are "renewable. " MTBE is presently the primary oxygenate used by Unocal at its refineries, as well as by other refineries across the nation. Other refineries, including Unocal are either using or are considering the future use of ETBE. Currently, supplies of ETBE are limited and the closest potential sources are from the Gulf Coast. Future availability is questionable and therefore cannot presently be considered reliable. As current manufacturing facilities convert to the production of ETBE, supplies may increase. Unocal will continue to review the viability of ETBE as an oxygenate, but presently, it is not a feasible alternative to the use of MTBE. In conclusion, none of the comments submitted by SEA authorize further environmental review or support SEA's request for recirculation of the EIR. December 5, 1994 ACR-39-94 Page 7 CONCLUSION Unocal respectfully requests that the Supervisors consider the arguments set .forth herein, as well as in Unocal' s separate response in opposition to the Union' s appeal and in support of Unocal 's own appeal, filed concurrently herewith. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Allen C. Randle Acting General Manager Unocal Petroleum Products&Chemicals Division Unocal Corporation 1380 San Pablo Avenue Rodeo,California 94572 Telephone(510)799-4411 UNOCAL V6 December 5, 1994 ACR-37-94 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors County Administrative Building 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors: Re: Unocal's Response To Appeal Of Plumbers and Steamfitters Local #342 To Land Use Permit No. 2038-93 ; Certification of Final EIR Union Oil Company of California ("Unocal") respectfully submits this response to the Appeal of the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local #342 ("Union") of the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission to approve Unocal 's Land Use Permit No. 2038- 93 and certify the final EIR for the Reformulated Gasoline Project ("Project") at Unocal's San Francisco Refinery ("Refinery") . The Union submitted, as grounds for appeal, its comments on the Project, as well as a letter submitted to the Planning Commission on October 4, 1994 . In response to the Union's appeal, Unocal submits those pages of the Final EIR responding to each of the Union's comments on the Project. In addition, Unocal also attaches hereto a letter submitted to the Commission on October 11, 1994 responding to the Union's letter of October 4, 1994. These materials refute each and every ground for appeal raised by the Union in its comments and letters in opposition to the Project. Thank you for your consideration of these materials. Sincerely, 1 ALLEN C. RANDLE • Acting General Manager MTO/lt Attachments Unocal Corpot'ation ' 1201 West 5th Street.PO. Box 7600 LOS Angeles.California 90051 Telephone 1213)977-6191 UNOCAL.76! October 11, 1994 Mark A.Smith Assistant Counsel Planning Commission Contra Costa County _ 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 RE: Unocal' s Response to Adams and IBroadvell Letter Comments Dated October 4, 1994 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: At the October 4 , 1994 Planning Commission hearing on Union Oil Company of California's ("Unocal") Reformulated Gasoline Project ("RFG" or the "Project") , Adams and Broadwell submitted a letter containing comments on proposed land use permit 2038-93 for the Project on behalf of the Plumbing and Pipefitters Union ("Union") and one of its members. These comments merely reiterate those submitted months earlier by the Union in its 40 single-spaced pages of comments on the Draft EIR. The County Planning Commission staff and its independent environmental consultant have carefully considered and responded to each of these comments in the "Response to Comments" section of the Final EIR. Thus, the Union's comments contain no new, relevant issues that have not already been considered, analyzed and addressed in the Final EIR for the Project. The Final EIR complies fully with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and should be certified by the Commission. The project will provide significant environmental and economic benefits to the local community, Contra Costa County and the Bay Area in the form of (1) cleaner air as a result of decreased emissions from automobiles, (2) local jobs, (3) sales and property tax revenues, (4) school facility upgrades and (5) a much needed influx of money to the local economy. If the Union succeeds in its effort to stall and delay the Project, these benefits could be lost. If Unocal is unable to complete the Refinery changes in time to meet the California Air Resources Board ("CARE") deadline for production of reformulated gasoline, Refinery operations could be curtailed significantly, resulting in job losses, tax revenue losses and potential gasoline shortage's and market disruption. Planning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 2 Unocal must proceed now with the modifications to the refinery in order to meet the stringent new gasoline requirements mandated by the California Clean Air Act. Substantial lead time is needed to complete the required modifications and additions before the state deadline for production of reformulated gasoline. Therefore, Unocal urges the Commission to certify the EIR and approve the Project at its October 18, 1994 hearing. I. The Land Use Permit Should Be Approved Because The Project Will Environmentally And Economically Benefit The Citizens Of Contra Costa County A. Recent Regrettable Releases At The Refinery Bear No Relevance To The Adequacy of the Final EIR And Therefore Should Not Affect The Commission's Approval Of The Permit And The Proiect The recent releases at the Refinery are regrettable events that stand in stark contrast to Unocal's exemplary record of compliance in the Bay Area. Unocal is working closely with the community to address the needs and concerns arising from the releases. In addition, Unocal is cooperating fully with the County Department of Health and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Unocal has a corporate commitment to compliance with all environmental laws and regulations. The results of this commitment has earned Unocal the distinction of having the best air quality compliance record of all Bay Area refineries. Unocal respectfully emphasizes to the Commission that the issue presently under consideration is the adequacy of the Final EIR for the Project. This Project does not expand the capacity of the Refinery. Rather, the Project seeks to make only those modifications and additions to the Refinery necessary to enable it to produce reformulated gasoline in compliance with GARB reformulated gasoline requirements. The reformulated gasoline, when used in cars throughout the County and the Bay Area, will result in lowered emissions from automobiles, resulting in cleaner air for everyone. The more than $100 million that Unocal will invest in the Refinery and the local community in order to comply with CARB's gasoline specifications will create jobs and boost the local economy. Thus, the benefits of the Project to the County are both economic and environmental. Recent releases at Planning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 3 the Refinery do not change the fundamental "win-win" nature of the Project for Contra Costa County. B. Unocal Has The Best Record Of Air Quality Compliance Amongst All Bay Area Refineriaa Unocal will not address each of the false and misleading statements contained in the Union's comments regarding Unocal's environmental compliance record. As stated above, the Union's arguments regarding environmental compliance do not bear upon the issue before the Commission, that being the adequacy of the Final EIR. It is instructive to point out, however, that the Union fails to recognize that Unocal has the best record of compliance with the BAAQMD of any refinery in the Bay Area. The Commission already has approved the reformulated gasoline projects for Shell Oil Company and Pacific Refining Company. For some reason the Union has chosen not to oppose those projects, thereby raising serious questions whether the Union's comments contain any legitimate environmental issues at all. Out of fairness to Unocal, the local communities that will benefit from the project, and all of the citizens who are expecting cleaner burning fuels as a result of the project. The Commission should approve this environmentally and economically beneficial project. II. Because The .Public Has Had Ample Opportunity To Comment On The Final EIR, The Commission Should Certify The EIR and Approve The Project At This Time The public has had ample opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR and the proposed Project. The time has now come for the Commission to certify the EIR and approve the Project. The Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment on June 3rd, and the comment period extended through July 25, 1994. There have been two public hearings where individuals have voiced support and opposition for the Project. The Final EIR addresses all issues raised in the public comments. The Union, in its quest to delay this environmentally beneficial Project, argues that it should be allowed to comlhent further on an alleged "new significant environmental impact" related to safety of on-site workers. The Response to Comments cited by the Union, however, unequivocally shows Planning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 4 that the issues raised by the Union were fully addressed in the Draft EIR and therefore do not constitute "new" significant impacts. Those members of the public who wished to comment on the issue of worker safety had the opportunity to do so. Therefore, further public comment is not authorized by CEQA. The Final EIR states that the "proposed project creates no significant new hazards not already present at the San Francisco Refinery and thereby creates a less-than- significant impact on overall worker safety. " Response to Comments page 2-183. It also points to discussions of worker safety throughout the draft EIR in support of this conclusion. Id. , page 2-182. No new analyses were performed by the environmental consultant or Commission staff to reach this conclusion. The Union completely ignores the above-quoted finding in the Final EIR and points instead to the County's further conclusion that due to inherent uncertainties about workplace safety, the potential for significant impacts to individual workers cannot be ruled out. The Final EIR was . clear, however, that this risk was entirely speculative and outside the parameters of review required by CEQA. As such, further review or discussion is not authorized by CEQA and is unnecessary. The Union's claim that the Project must be delayed pending. further CEQA review of impacts to on-site workers is without legal or factual support. The Commission should decline the Union's invitation to unnecessarily delay this Project. III. The EIR Is In Compliance With CEQA Because It Adequately Addresses All Environmental Impacts Related To The Protect The Union alleges that the Final EIR inadequately addresses some issues raised by the Union in its comments submitted to the County. The County and its independent environmental consultant responded to over 40 single-spaced pages of comments from the Union prior to issuing the Final EIR. The Union claims that ten (out of a total of 43) issues were not resolved to its satisfaction and that the Project should be delayed pending further public comment. The Union's ten comments are nothing more than misrepresentations of fact and misstatements of the record and must be rejected. The County and its consultant have complied with all CEQA requirements. Accordingly, the Final EIR should be certified and the Project approved notwithstanding the Union's difference of opinion on technical aspects of Planning Commission October 11, 1994 Page , 5 certain mitigation measures. Nonetheless, Unocal will briefly respond to each argument below. A. Impacts of Sulfur Removal From Blendstocks Imported From Unocal's Los Angeles Refinery Need Not Be Considered In the San Francisco EIR The Union asserts that the impacts of processing intermediate blendstocks in Los Angeles, which will be imported to San Francisco to make reformulated gasoline, should have been considered in the Final EIR for this Project. The off-site production of intermediate blendstocks, however, will have no environmental effect that has not already been considered fully. The environmental impacts resulting from the production of intermediate blendstocks in Los Angeles were fully and adequately considered in the Final EIR by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") prior to approval of -that reformulated gasoline project. Those impacts were found to be insignificant. Further, the County does not have permitting authority over off-site locations such as Unocal's Los Angeles. Refinery. Therefore, no further review by the County is appropriate here. B. Selenium Discharges At The Refinery Will Not Increase Due-- To- The Proiect The Union disingenuously feigns confusion as to how Unocal can increase its production of jet and diesel fuel without increasing selenium discharges. The answer, however, is clearly stated in the Response to Comments. Because selenium is contained in crude oil, and the crude throughput of the Refinery will remain the same, no new selenium discharges will result from the Project. Unocal will divert intermediate blendstocks from the production of gasoline to the production of jet and diesel fuels. The gasoline blendstocks will be replaced with imported blendstocks that have already been hydrotreated. Based on studies to date, wastewater containing selenium is believed to be primarily generated during hydrotreatment of crude oil. Therefore, these imported intermediate blendstocks will not be a source of additional selenium discharges. The Union is simply incorrect when it states that the overall :selenium discharges J Planning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 6 from the Refinery must increase with increased production of jet and diesel fuel. C. Ship Emissions Were Fully Considered and Mitigated In the Final EIR The Union lifts a page from the Los Angeles Refinery EIR and claims that there is an inconsistency between it and the EIR for the Project. In fact, there is no inconsistency. The Union claims that the EIR for Unocal's Los Angeles reformulated gasoline project indicates that four additional vessel trips per month are required to export certain products from Los Angeles. The San Francisco Refinery EIR states that all imports of intermediate blendstocks from Los Angeles will utilize excess capacity on existing marine calls, and that no additional marine vessel visits to San Francisco Refinery are required to transport the blendstocks from Los Angeles.- The logical conclusion, and the correct one, is that the four additional marine vessel departures from Los Angeles are not vessels bound for San Francisco, but rather to other ports. The Final EIR properly estimates ship emissions due to the Project. D. The Description Of The Increased Duct Firing Mitigation Measure Is Complete The Union next argues that mitigation measure 8-4 must be revised because it does not specifically require increased ammonia injection to reduce NOx emissions. However, the Union itself states that increased ammonia injection is an "indispensable element of NOx reduction." As an indispensable element of NOx reduction, it is unnecessary to specify that it take place. The County has set NOx emission standards that Unocal must comply with. Unocal will obtain all necessary air permits to increase ammonia injection as necessary to meet those standards. Therefore, it would be unnecessary surplusage for the mitigation measure to detail each and every step of the process. Having established the mitigation and the compliance standard, it is self-evident how Unocal will proceed in order to comply. Planning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 7 E. VOC Emissions Will Be Fully, Mitigated The Union suggests that existing tanks at the Refinery could be retrofitted to reduce VOC emissions onsite. The Final EIR states that no information exists showing that any reduction in emissions would be achieved .by such a change in tanks. In addition, all VOC emissions from the Refinery will be fully offset by Unocal, completely eliminating any significant impacts to the annual average emissions of VOCs at the Refinery. The Union mischaracterizes the EIR's response to its comments by arguing that the tank retrofit was rejected because the emissions reductions from such a retrofit could not be calculated. This interpretation of the Response to Comments is fallacious and misleading. The Response to Comments contained in the Final EIR indicated that existing calculation methods do not differentiate between emissions from double- sealed versus zero-gap seals, and as such, there is no information to support the theory that emissions would be lower. In fact, current modelling techniques indicate that the emissions would be exactly the same. Because the purported benefit suggested by the Union is entirely speculative, CEQA does not require that such mitigation measures be implemented. F. Selective Catalytic Reduction Will Be Installed As Required By The BAAQMD And Therefore Need Not Be Considered Further As A Mitigation Measure The Union argues that Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) of combustion sources should be required as mitigation in order to reduce NOx emissions. In response to the Union's comment, the County pointed out that Unocal is already required to install SCR under BAAQMD Rules. The Union suggests that such reductions could be achieved earlier and that the EIR failed to consider requiring SCR as mitigation. The Union ignores the County' s response in the Final EIR that even were SCR instituted as a mitigation measure, it would be installed in the same time frame as required by the BAAQMD regulations. The Union fails to consider the time required to design, review, procure and install such equipment. The process of implementing SCR in accordance with BAAQMD rules has already begun at the Refinery. Thus, because SCR is already required by the BAAQMD, the County need not r Planning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 8 have adopted SCR as specific mitigation for the Project. G. Retrofit Of Existing Valves With Bellowed Seal Valves Would Not Result In Reduced Emissions The Union suggests that retrofitting valves at the Refinery with Bellowed Seal Valves would reduce VOC emissions and should be required as mitigation. The Union does not point out, however, that all new valves to be installed by Unocal at the Refinery will meet BAAQMD BACT requirements. In addition, Unocal will offset all increased VOC emissions caused by the project, thereby reducing the impact of VOC emissions to insignificance. No further mitigation, therefore, is required. Furthermore, the Final EIR concluded, based on recent studies, that valves meeting the 100 ppm standard, leak only one pound of VOCs annually. The Final EIR rejected the retrofit proposed by the Union as infeasible because it is more costly than offsets and may not be achievable on existing tanks. Because Unocal will be fully offsetting all VOC emissions, the County properly rejected the Union's recommendation to impose expensive and speculative retrofits to existing tanks. K. Reduction of Sulfur In Refining Fuel Gas Would Create Secondary Impacts And Is Unnecessary The Union suggests that Unocal could mitigate SO2 emissions by reducing the sulfur in fuel gas used at the refinery. The Union points out that lower levels are required in Los Angeles and therefore could be implemented here. Again, the Union omits the important fact that Unocal will fully mitigate annual average SO2 emissions with offsets, thereby reducing this impact to less than significant levels. Furthermore, the Final EIR notes that sulfur levels from fuel gas will be reduced by the increased duct firing at the steam power plant and that further reduction would necessitate more process equipment, resulting in additional combustion sources, air pollution, creation of hazardous waste, increased air toxics and other secondary impacts. Thus, the County properly rejected the Union's proposed mitigation as of questionable environmental benefit in light of the secondary impacts and the preferred and economical mitigation of the impacts through offsets. Planning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 9 I. Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From Ships Have Already Been Mitigated To The Extent Feasible The Union next argues that Unocal should require ships that it does not own to use low sulfur fuel oil when delivering products at the Unocal wharf. The Union omits the fact that Unocal will offset emissions from these ships as mitigation, thereby reducing the impact to less than significant levels. The Final EIR points out that it would not be possible for Unocal to require independent ships to use low sulfur fuel oil when making a delivery to its wharf. Unocal ships already use such oil. Therefore, all mitigation that can be achieved reasonably has been required. It is not possible for Unocal to know what ships may be used to transport materials purchased on the open market, where they will be coming from, and whether they can obtain and use low-sulfur fuel oil. The Union suggests that the County could direct the BAAQMD to require such ships to use low sulfur fuel oil when making deliveries as mitigation. But the Union also cites the fact that the BAAQMD already regulates ship traffic, including maneuvering activities. Thousands of ships make visits to the Bay each year, subject to applicable rules and regulations. Further limitations or requirements on ship traffic would be outside the jurisdiction of the County and beyond the scope of CEQA review. J. Cumulative Ship Traffic Was Considered And Found To Be Less Than Significant The Union argues that the Final EIR failed to consider cumulative ship traffic and the risks associated therewith. The Draft EIR, however, points to a study by the Vessel Traffic Service of the U.S. Coast Guard indicating that even considering projected traffic through the Carquinez Strait through the year 2000, no unacceptable congestion would result. Therefore, the Union's projected cumulative impact from ship traffic is a mirage. The Project proposes to add a maximum of 12 vessel visits annually associated with the Project. The EIR concluded that the risk of a sizeable spill from this increased ship movement was extremely low and at a level below significance. And, as stated in the Response to Comments, if a spill were to occur, mitigation measures have been required that would Planning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 10 reduce the impacts of such a spill to levels of insignificance. Therefore, the Union's comment is without merit. The risk of accidents caused by the increased marine traffic in the .Bay increases only marginally and any risk of impact resulting from such an accident has been mitigated as . part of the Project. IV. Conclusion The County should certify the Final EIR as adequate and in compliance with CEQA and grant the land use permit for the Project. The Project is designed solely to comply with state requirements for clean gasoline that will result in cleaner air for citizens of the County and the Bay Area. The Project will also bring a much needed economic boost to the local economy, provide up to $1 million in additional annual property taxes, and result in facility upgrades at the local school. Thus, the Project will provide environmental and economic benefits to the County. Unocal respectfully requests that it be permitted to proceed at this time with the construction of this Project so that it will have sufficient time to meet CARB' s reformulated - gasoline deadline. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Mark A. Smith MAS:mm MM24-104 Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project, Administrative Final EIR 2. Comments and Responses Page 2-d8 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ADAMS AND BROADWELL (JULY 17, 1994) RESPONSE ABI-1 Selenium Hydrology The commentor requests an extension of the public review period in order to review recent legal decisions concerning selenium discharges. The commentor is referred to RESPONSES AB2-31 through AB2-35 for a discussion of the recent legal decisions concerning selenium and the quantity of selenium discharged by the Reformulated Gasoline Project. The commentor was granted a seven day extension of the public comment period, which is discussed further in RESPONSE RCA-1. RESPONSE ABI-2 Ship Emissions Air Quality The commentor claims that Draft EIR understated emissions due to marine traffic by underestimating marine shipments from Unocal's Los Angeles Refinery. The County believes that estimates of additional ship traffic generated by the proposed project are correctly presented in the Draft EIR. Materials shipped between Unocal's San Francisco Refinery and its Los Angeles Refinery would be on existing calls by Unocal owned ships. No additional calls would be required as the ships can accommodate the additional cargoes. The 12 extra calls are to allow for as yet unidentified opportunities to buy or sell products requiring delivery or shipment by sea. The Unocal Los Angeles Refinery's ship traffic figures cited in their EIR are not shipments to the San Francisco Refinery,but other transfers off-site. All Los Angeles Refinery shipments to the: San Francisco Refinery will be accommodated on existing Unocal ship calls. The commentor further requests an extension of the public review period to evaluate estimates of ship traffic. The County did grant Adams& Broadwell a seven-day extension of the public comment period, and extended it to those requesting it prior to filing comments. Please review RESPONSE RCA-1 for further elaboration on this issue. i Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Fina1.61R 2. Comments and Responses Page 2-69 RESPONSE ABI-3 Wickland Terminal Cumulative Impacts The commentor appears to be confusing the location of the Wickland Oil Terminal Expansion proposed for the Wickland-Martinez facility with modifications previously approved for the Wickland Selby facility. The referenced EIR was for a Wickland facility in Martinez, approximately 12 miles from the Unocal San Francisco Refinery. The Wickland EIR was not available at the time the Unocal Draft EIR was prepared. The impact of the Wickland-Martinez facility expansion was considered in the cumulative air quality analysis of the Unocal Draft EIR (Unocal Draft EIR, page 19-17 and forward) and no significant impacts were found. Due to the distance between the two projects, the Wickland-Martinez facility would not be expected to have cumulative impacts with the Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project. The commentor further requests an extension of the public review period to further evaluate the Draft EIRs analysis of cumulative impacts. The County did grant a seven-day extension to those who requested it prior to filing their comments. Please review RESPONSE RCA-1 for further elaboration on this issue. RESPONSE AB14 Technical Appendices CEQA The commentor notes that several technical appendices were not circulated with Draft E1R, thus requiring more time of the readers to complete their reviews. The locations of technical'appendices were stated in the Draft EIR. CEQA Guidelines clearly instruct that the EIR be written in "plain language . . .so that decision-makers and the public can rapidly understand the documents" [Section 15140] and that the EIR summarize technical data [Section 151471. Section 15147 states, "Appendices to the EIR may be prepared in volumes separate from the basic EIR document, but shall be readily available for public examination . . . ." The Draft EIR stated that technical appendices were available at the County. The County reports that it received no request to review technical appendices. As mentioned elsewhere in this document, the County granted the commentor an additional seven days to review and comment on the Draft EIR. I Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR - 2. Comments and Responses Page 2-70 RESPONSE ABI-5 Public Review Period CEQA The commentor opines that a fifteen day extension would not adversely affect Unocal's schedule to build and operate the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the EIR. Thus, no further discussion is warranted. RESPONSE ABI-6 Public Participation CEQA The commentor discusses their interpretation of CEQA's.purpose concerning public participation. This comment does_not address the adequacy or completeness of the.EIR.Thus,no further discussion is warranted. Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-131 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ADAMS AND BROADWELL (JULY 252 1994) RESPONSE A112-1 Inadequate Project Description Project Description The commentor claims that the Project Description is incomplete. The responses to the commentor's concerns regarding Project Description are provided in RESPONSES AB-2 through AB-5- RESPONSE A112-2 Hydrogen Capacity Project Description The commentor states that the new hydrogen plant could be used for increased hydrocracking, hydrotreating, or sulfur removal,which could result in increased sulfur emissions and could increase selenium and cyanide in refinery wastewater. As stated on page 3-27 of the Draft EIR, the Reformulated Gasoline Project would require more hydrogen than the Unocal refinery is currently capable of producing. The refinery depends on process hydrogen (that produced during processing) and manufactured hydrogen (that produced in the refinery hydrogen plant). The need for hydrogen varies due to the quality of feedstock and unit rates. The proposed Hydrogen Plant would supply the hydrogen needed when process hydrogen is not available, or is reduced. It would be capable of producing 24 million cubic feet of hydrogen per day, which is the nameplate capacity. The proposed Hydrogen Plant would not utilize excess hydrogen for hydrotreating, which is known to increase the amount of selenium and cyanide discharges and to increase sulfur emissions. Additionally, the downstream process units, including hydrotreating units, are currently at capacity and would be unable to process more hydrogen. Hydrotreating capacity at the refinery is therefore not limited by hydrogen or steam production, but is physically limited by equipment sizing. As such,with completion of the Reformulated Gasoline Project,the refinery would continue to have excess hydrogen and steam capacity,but hydrotreating capacity would still be limited. Also, the changes in processing that are necessary for reformulated gasoline take place after the material have been processed in hydrotreaters; that is, the sulfur is already removed in existing Indicates change to the text of the Draft EIR. All changes to each chapter are presented in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR. Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2. Comments and Responses Page 2-132 processes. Therefore, the Reformulated Gasoline Project would not affect or modify the refinery's hydrotreating capacity, nor allow new hydrotreating feeds that could increase selenium and cyanide, and increase sulfur emissions(for additional discussion of sulfur emissions,refer to RESPONSE AB2- 3). Additionally, the Reformulated Gasoline Project does not propose to increase the amount of crude throughput as stated in the first paragraph of Draft EIR, page 3-27. Crude oil is the source of selenium and cyanide. The crude capacity at the refinery is limited by Bay Area Air Quality Management District permit conditions imposed in 1983 as part of the coker expansion project. The coker project was designed to fill downstream processing units to their design rates, including the hydrotreating units, as mentioned above. In sum,the Reformulated Gasoline Project would not increase selenium and cyanide discharges,nor increase sulfur emissions because 1) the Reformulated Gasoline Project would not change Unocal's hydrotreating capabilities, and 2) the Reformulated Gasoline Project would not increase crude oil throughput. The following revision to the Draft EIR on page 3-27 under "1. Hydrogen Plant" is explanatory only and does not change the conclusions of the EIR: 1. Hydrogen Plant In order to satisfy the aromatics requirements of reformulated gasoline, the amount of Reformer Feed produced would be less than the current operation. Since there would be less Reformer Feed, there would be less hydrogen produced during the Reforming reactions. In addition,to further reduce the aromatics content of gasoline, the reforming reaction would be less severe, also producing less hydrogen. However, while hydrogen production would decrease, the need for hydrogen would not. Figure 3-7 displays a flow diagram of the hydrogen plant processes. A new hydrogen plant would be constructed to meet the increased need for hydrogen. '#eetiv"1ig pinnt would be caabte of producing a maximum Z rrullian cubic feet nl hydroert der y} "fhe ixialnnty Q this hydrogen would be used tt>make tip foxoetirst €mitt changes trx Yhc..Refartntng reactions._The.-remaiiung poriian would be� ser?fot 17en�Ae satura�on and outer miscellaneous processes. it should be tidied that the , hy�r��ei�would not� used to increase hydrotreating,processeS: The Hydrogen Plant would consist of a reformer furnace (approximately 80 feet in height) and associated stack (approximately 120 feet in height), a pressure swing Unocal Reforniulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final M 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-133 adsorption (PSA) mixing drum (approximately 100 feet in height), and other equipment including a compressor, cooler and associated piping. The plot area in which the equipment would be located would be approximately 180' x 250' (refer to Figure 3-3). RESPONSE AB2-3 Sulfur Emissions Project Descri]pdra The commentor claims that the EIR underestimated emissions due to marine traffic by underestimating marine shipments from Unocal's Los Angeles Refinery. This comment is quit-- similar uitesimilar to a previous Adams & Broadwell comment, AB1-2. The commentor further claims that the EIR is inadequate unless (1) it more fully discusses how Unocal meets the sulfur limit for reformulated gasoline and (2) it explains fully how Unocal meets each reformulated fuels requirement. First,the EIR has not underestimated sulfur removal activities due to the reformulated fuels project As stated on page 3-12 of the Draft EIR, some current blendstock constituents of gasoline will be removed in order to meet the more stringent requirements for reformulated gasoline which include reduced sulfur content. The current blendstocks (heavier gasoline blendstock materials)will be used to produce diesel and jet fuel. The removal of these blendstocks will reduce the total volume of gasoline produced. .Replacement gasoline blendstocks will be required to produce the same volume of gasoline with the new specifications required for reformulated gasoline. The replacement gasoline blendstocks will consist of oxygenated and intermediate stocks. The intermediate stocks will be imported from Unocal's Los Angeles Refinery and other locations. The blendstock changes which are required for the reformulated gasoline project only affect blendstocks which have already been hydrotreated to remove sulfur compounds. Thus, incremental sulfur removal processing and subsequent sulfur emissions at the Unocal San Francisco refinery will not occur as a result of this project. The Unocal San Francisco refinery has little control over the processing of blendstocks that are imported from other sources. However, as stated on page 3-13 of the Draft EIR, the operation of a r;finery is driven by market forces. If there is low demand for a particular product or blendstock, it is either sold at a lower price or reprocessed into more desirable products based on economic evaluations and market demand. Thus, if the Unocal San Francisco refinery did not require the new Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-134 _ imported blendstocks to manufacture reformulated gasoline, the blendstocks would likely be used to make alternative products. And, since the blendstocks in question have all been hydrotreated to remove sulfur, no net change in sulfur emissions will occur unless the sulfur removal capacity has been increased by other refineries which supply the replacement blendstocks. Sulfur emissions are subject to federal regulations. The current regulations are based on a banking system which requires potential producers of sulfur emissions to buy the emission rights from current producers. This banking system does not allow for increased sulfur emissions without corresponding decreases elsewhere. Second,the commentor also states that the EIR cannot be legally adequate without a full explanation of how Unocal will meet.each of the specifications of reformulated gasoline, and an evaluation of the impacts related to meeting those specifications. The relationship of the project components to the project objectives and requirements of producing reformulated gasoline is displayed on page 3-28 of the Draft EIR, in Table 3-3. The evaluation of how the new specifications could create impacts are found throughout the EIR in the environmental analyses chapters. Clearly Unocal has been able to meet some of the reformulated fuels requirements without proposing alterations to its refining process, simply by changing its operations within the boundaries of its existing permits. These changes, which do not trigger any permit application, are not considered a part of this project, and are not subject to this CEQA review. This project only includes those changes that trigger a permit application — in this case, a Land Use Permit Application. See the California Environmental Quality Act, Chapter 2.5 Definitions, Section 21065 for a definition of t "project." CEQA does not require that reformulated fuels projects include, as part of the project description, all actions necessary to meet the state and federal reformulated fuels requirements. RESPONSE AB24 Selenium Project Description The commentor notes that the project will result in increased steam production which could be used to hydrotreat (remove sulfur), process additional jet fuel, and subsequently increase the discharge of selenium. The refinery currently has excess steam production capacity to ensure adequate supplies during normal changes in operation, feed quality, and for emergencies. With the reformulated gasoline project,excess steam will still be required for the same reasons. As discussed in RESPONSE AB2-2, the refinery hydrotreating throughput (capacity) is physically limited (by equipment sizing) f Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2- Comments and Responses Page 2-135 rather than steam(or hydrogen)availability. Therefore,the hydrotreating units cannot accommodate increased feed rates. The crude capacity of the refinery is limited by Bay Area Air Quality Management(BAAQI iM)permit conditions imposed in 1983 as part of the coker expansion project; the coker project was designed to fill downstream processing units to their design rates(including the hydrotreating units). The crude oil fed to the refinery is the ultimate source of selenium. Since the refinery feedstock (crude oil) will not be changed as a result of this project, subsequent potential releases of selenium will not be changed. RESPONSE AB2-5 Selenium Discharge; Air Emission Project Descriptionk4ir Quality The commentor makes the following five points in this comment: 1. the EIR fails to'quantify the increased capacity to manufacture diesel and 'et fuel, q . fY P Y J 2. increased production of jet and diesel fuel would increase selenium discharges; 3. increased production leads to increased use of jet and diesel fuel, which leads to increased emissions; 4. these increased emissions would overwhelm the benefits of using reformulated gasoline; and i 5. the EIR must evaluate the full capacity of the project, including increased capacity to produce diesel &jet fuel. t The County disagrees with the commentor that this EIR failed to evaluate a potential environmental impact as required by CEQA. First, as stated by the commentor, the EIR clearly identified that the refinery would divert some intermediate products to jet and diesel fuel production (Draft EIR, page 3-12). However this diversion does not represent an increased production capacity. Unocal's i production of jet and diesel fuel has varied over time according to market demand. Unocal currently. has the option to divert intermediate product to jet and diesel production. Production of diesel and f: jet fuel will increase, but Unocal's physical capacity to produce jet and diesel fuel has not been ' altered. i. Second, this increased production (whether or not labeled a capacity increase) will not cause an 1 increase in selenium discharges. j Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR _ 3. Comments and Responses Page 2-136 As discussed in RESPONSE AB2-2, the blendstocks that will be diverted due to the reformulated gasoline project have already been hydrotreated and as such, have already been processed to remove sulfur. And, as discussed in RESPONSE AB2-3, the crude capacity of the refinery is limited by Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) permit conditions. The crude oil fed to the refinery is the ultimate source of selenium. Since the refinery feedstock (crude oil) will not be changed as a result of this project, subsequent potential releases of selenium will not be changed. Similarly, the increased production of jet and diesel fuel will not cause an increase in air emissions. Changes in distillation cut point which will move material previously part of gasoline production into diesel(et fuel production will decrease emissions in downstream units. On a barrel per barrel basis, it takes less energy (heater firing) to process material in the diesel units (unisar and diesel hydrotreater) than in gasoline units (reformers or hydrotreaters). Heater firing is a major source of air emissions from these units.. Additionally, downstream tankage emissions will be less due to decreased gasoline throughput. Ship traffic will not change as a result of diversions into dieseVjet fuel. No additional ship calls are planned beyond those presented in the Draft EIR. This information is explanatory and does not alter the analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR concerning selenium discharges or air emissions. Third,increased production does not necessarily lead to increased consumer use of jet and diesel fuel, and the commentor presents no evidence to support this position. To determine if increased Unocal production would lead to increased consumer use of diesel and jet fuel would be speculative, due to the large number of factors that influence demand for petroleum products and the uncertainty about these factors. As stated'on page 3-13 of the Draft EIR, market forces influence the balanced operation of a refinery. The market for jet and diesel fuel is a complex function involving supply and demand. If the volume produced is more than the market demand, the price of jet and diesel fuel will decrease accordingly until producers are economically forced to limit production. Further, the demand for and thus use of jet or diesel fuel will increase as the demand for transportation increases, not as a result of increased production. However, depending on the price elasticity of demand, a decreased price may (but not necessarily) result in an increase in demand. The use of diesel and jet fuel is not a simple function of the amount produced at this Unocal refinery, but is a function of a number of factors, only one of which is the available Unocal supply. Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2- Comments and Responses Page 2-137 To quantify the change in consumption of jet and diesel fuel due to increased production at one refinery would be speculative, since both demand for and supply of these products are affected by regional and international economic forces well beyond the scope of this CEQA analysis. Where evaluation of an impact is too speculative, CEQA Guidelines (Section 15145) instructs the lead agency to note its conclusion (as done above) and terminate the discussion of this impact. Fourth, even if one assumed that consumer use of diesel and jet fuel would increase due to this project, it does not follow logically that emissions generated by that increased use would overwhelm the regional benefits associated with the use of reformulated gasoline. The evaluation of increased use would be highly dependent upon the particular environmental conditions at the locations where jet fuel and diesel would be used. Such factors as nearby uses, habitats, local meteorological conditions, environmental regulations, service station emission controls, regulatory conditions, and others would be critical to any conclusions. Given the undefined nature of end use at remote locations, any analysis would be speculative and indeterminate. Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines specifically limits the responsibility of the lead agency in such speculation. Fifth, the commentor states that the EIR must evaluate the full capacity of the project, including increased capacity to produce diesel & jet fuel. The County concludes that the EIR has evaluated the impacts of the full capacity of the project in a manner consistent with CEQA. The County sees no convincing evidence that increased production would lead to increased selenium discharge, to increased use of jet fuel and diesel in vehicles, or to increased emissions from these vehicles. The additional analysis requested by the commentor would be speculative and contrary to CEQA Guidelines. RESPONSE AB2-6 Technical Appendices CEQA The commentor asserts the following: 1. A fundamental purpose of CEQA is to foster public participation; 2. The EIR must summarize the analysis in a way that allows full public assessment; 3., Technical detail, upon which the summary is based, must be contained in a technical appendix or elsewhere; i _ Unocal Reformulated Gsoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2. Commenu and Responses Page 2-138 4. This EIR contains the summary; and S• This EIR's technical detail is sometimes absent because: • it was prepared by Unocal, and • the County did not indicate that the information represented the County's independent technical judgment. In comments ;-7, AB2-8, AB2-9 and AB2-10, the commentor provides specific examples of this claimed la,* of dependence. The Coons -_=s no issue with the commentor's points one, two, three, and four. However, the County dit=-- uitb the assertion that supporting technical detail is absent. Each chaps Z :he Draft EIR references sources of information, even those provided by Unocal, and refers _s. to technical appendices available upon request at the Contra Costa County Communi - -r1;__1optnent Department. The County hired independent technical consultants, as authorized QA to evaluate the information provided by the applicant. The County and its consultant the analysis prepared by Unocal, requested revisions or additions as needed,and prepared L--�-.3ent analysis and conclusions based on the information. The analytic methods used have beend in the EIR, as well as the standards by which the analytic conclusions were drawn. The tical analysis and background data have been fully referenced in each chapter of the EIR. As mentict—.,— = RE-SPONSE AB14, placing technical data and analysis in technical appendices, separate _ basic EIR document,"is recommended by CEQA Guidelines Section 15147. Since the EIR dis=;z-�- :he applicant as source,discusses how this information was evaluated and used,and makes it av-E='-�_ for the public to review themselves, it is not necessary for the County to state in writing than --s =ah-sis represents the independent judgment of the County. The EIR document describes az a-.tic process that demonstrates an independent analytic procedures. Information from the ap7__ : is clearly a part of the EIR, has been referenced in the EIR where appropriate, and has beer -- - evaluated by the County's independent consultants. In this manner, the EIR and its analytic seem entirely consistent with the standard being set forth by this commentor. Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2.139 RESPONSE AB2-7 Emission Factors Air Quality The commentor asserts the following: 1. The Draft EIR does not contain any information disclosing how the criteria pollutant emission estimates were made. 2. The County may not have exercised it independent judgment since the applicant's consultant was cited as the source for the emissions estimates. 3. The basis of the emissions estimates must be provided in the EIR or an appendix to the EIR. 4. The County must exercise its independent judgment and review the calculations. S. A draft EIR must be circulated which fully discloses the basis for its estimate of criteria pollutant emissions and describes the steps it has taken to independently verify the accuracy of the applicant estimates of the emissions. As explained in the following paragraphs, the County believes that this Draft EIR has fully disclosed the analytic process used to evaluate air emissions and that this Draft EIR clearly represents the County's independent technical judgment. In response to point number one, page 8-32 of the Draft EIR contains information on how the criteria pollutant emission estimates were made. In response to point number two, the County has exercised its independent judgment in evaluating the emissions estimated prepared by the applicant's consultant. The County hired an independent consultant who reviewed and verified the emissions estimates prior to presentation in the EIR. In addition, the majority of the criteria pollutant emissions were estimated using BAAQMD emissions factors or emissions factors verified by the BAAQMD. In addition to verification by the County's consultant, all emissions estimates have also been verified by the BAAQMD, a responsible agency for this project. In response to point number three, as stated on pages 8-31 and 8-32 of the Draft EIR, the basis for all emissions estimates are provided in the Authority to Construct Application submitted to the BAAQMD, and subsequent revisions. This information was submitted to the County as part of the 1 Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Response Page 2-140 _ Land Use Application. These documents.are available for public review at the County offices. As mentioned in RESPONSE AB14, placing technical data and analysis in technical appendices, separate from the "basic EIR document,' is recommended by CEQA Guidelines Section 15147. In response to points four and five, the EIR discloses the applicant as source, discusses how this information was evaluated and used, and makes it available for the public to review it themselves. It is therefore not necessary for the County to state in writing that the analysis represents the independent judgement of the County. The EIR document described an analytic process that demonstrates, through its consultants, an independent analytic procedure. This information from the applicant is clearly a part of the EIR, has been referenced in the EIR where appropriate, and has been fully evaluated by the County's independent consultants. In this manner, the EIR and .its analytic process seem entirely consistent with the standard being sett forth by this commentor. RESPONSE AB2-8 Health Risk Assessment Public Health Contrary to the assertion by the commentor, the assessment of health risk from increased emission of toxic air pollutants was not based solely on the applicant's assessment of health risk. As with the criteria pollutant emission estimates as discussed in RESPONSE AB2-7, the County has exercised its independent judgment in evaluating the health risk assessment prepared by the applicant's consultant. The County hired an independent consultant who reviewed and verified the health risk assessment prior to presentation in the Draft EIR. In-addition, the health risk assessment was prepared according to a protocol approved by the BAAQMD, a responsible agency for this project. All toxic emissions factors have also been verified by the BAAQMD. The commentor also wrongly asserts that the Draft EIR contained no information that would allow the public to review the applicant's health risk estimates. The methodology for preparation of the health risk assessment was described on pages 9-14 through 9-22 of the Draft EIR. The actual assessment was provided as an appendix to the Authority to Construct Application submitted to the BAAQMD. This information was submitted to the County as part of the Land Use Application. These documents and the BAAQMD approved protocol are available for public review at the County offices. As mentioned in RESPONSE A1314, placing technical data and analysis in technical appendices,separate from the"basic EIR document," is recommended by CEQA Guidelines Section 15147. .Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2. Comments and Responses Page 2-141 As stated in the Draft EIR (Page 9-9), the fact that there was a discrepancy between Unocal and the BAAQMD in a prior assessment of health risk from the entire refinery has no bearing on this project The health risk assessment was prepared in accordance with a methodology reviewed by the County's consultant and approved by the BAAQMD, as indicated on Page 9-14 of the Draft EIR, and the BAAQMD has not questioned the validity of the project assessment to date. The commentor raises a number of questions about the health risk analysis methodology and queries whether ship emissions were included. The health risk assessment as presented in the EIR estimates the type and quantity of toxic air pollutants which the project would emit as accurately as possible at the time the EIR was published. The health risk assessment utilized the rural terrain modeling option for dispersion coefficients. Emission from the loading and unloading operations at the marine terminal were treated separately. Ship unloading results in emissions at the storage facility to which the unloaded material is pumped. Therefore, these emissions were included in the tank emission calculations, and were incorporated into the health risk assessment. Ship loading operations may result in emissions due to displacement of vapors by liquids. These emissions were estimated at 0.73 tons per year. This estimate was prepared after completion of the project health risk assessment. However, the health risk assessment was not revised due to this change. Emissions from his source constitute only 2% of the total precursor organic compounds from the project. If a 2% increase to the results of the health risk assessment were considered, the increased risks would remain far below the standard of significance and the conclusions of the EIR would not change. Since the EIR discloses the applicant as source, discusses how this information was evaluated and used, and makes it available for the public to review themselves, it is not necessary for the County to state in writing that the analysis represents the independent judgement of the County. The EIR document described an analytic process that demonstrates, through it consultants, an independent analytic procedure. This information from the applicant is clearly a part of the EIR, has been referenced in the EIR where appropriate, and has been fully evaluated by the County's independent consultants. In this manner, the EIR and its analytic process seem entirely consistent with the standard being set forth by this commentor. Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR - 3. Commenu and Responses Page 3-143 RESPONSE AB2-9 Ship Emission Factors Air Quality As stated in the Draft EIR on page 8-31, all assumptions and calculations for annual marine traffic emissions are presented in the Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate Application submitted by Unocal to the BAAQMD for this project. This information was submitted to the County as part of the Land Use Application. These documents are available for public review at the County offices. As mentioned in RESPONSE AB14, placing technical data and analysis in technical appendices, separate from the "basic EIR document," is recommended by CEQA Guidelines Section 15147. Calculation of maximum daily emissions due to ship traffic were prepared by the County's independent consultant and utilized the same factors as the annual emissions estimates. For this case, worst-case daily operations were assumed for each pollutant and ship activity. It is not necessary to recirculate the Draft EIR to present these methodologies. The County has exercised its independent judgment in evaluating the emissions estimated prepared by the applicant's consultant. The County hired an independent. consultant who reviewed the emissions estimates prior to presentation in the EIR. In addition, the majority of the criteria pollutant emissions were estimated using BAAQMD emissions factors or emissions factors,verified by the BAAQMD. All emissions estimates have been verified by the BAAQMD, a responsible agency for this project. . Since the'EIR discloses the applicant as source, discusses how this information was evaluated and used, and makes it available for the public to review themselves, it is not necessary for the County to state in writing that the analysis represents,the independent judgement of the County. The EIR document described an analytic process that demonstrates, through it consultants, an independent analytic procedure. This information from the applicant is clearly a part of the EIR, has been referenced in the EIR where appropriate, and has been fully evaluated by the County's independent consultants. In this manner, the EIR and its analytic process seem entirely consistent with the standard being set forth by this commentor and recirculation is not necessary. RESPONSE AB2-10 Off-Site Waste Disposal Land Use The commentor claims that the Draft EIR did not describe the volume of construction waste that would be generated by the project and sent to landfills. The County disagrees with this comment. Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-143 As discussed in the Project Description on pages 340 and 343 of the Draft EIR,demolition of major structures is not required as part of this project, and no equipment is scheduled for relocation. Demolition and/or removal of minor structures, such as pipe support and concrete slabs, and excavation of clean fill and waste soil would be the only construction waste generated by the Reformulated Gasoline Project. As explained.in the Draft EIR on page 340,construction plans call for all clean fill and waste soil generated by minor structure demolition to be reused or disposed of on-site, and as such is not considered waste. Unocal is developing a soil management plan for the Reformulated Gasoline Project with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Approximately 100 cubic yards of asphaltic concrete would also be reused and disposed of on-site, if possible. Otherwise, this small amount of concrete would be hauled off-site and could be disposed of at Keller Canyon Landfill, where capacity would be adequate to accept such disposal. Keller Canyon Landfill, which began operation on May 7, 1992, has a projected life of 30 years, and a disposal capacity of 37,500,000 tons.' This information is explanatory only and does not change the conclusions drawn in the Draft EIR. RESPONSE AB2-11 Additional Ship Traffic Air Quality The commentor asserts that the Draft EIR underestimated the number of ships from the Unocal Los Angeles Refinery. The estimates of additional ship traffic generated by the proposed project are correctly presented in the Draft EIR. Materials shipped between San Francisco Refinery and Los Angeles Refinery will be on existing calls by Unocal owned ships. No additional calls are required as the ships can accommodate the additional cargoes. The 12 extra calls are to account for as yet unidentified opportunities to buy or sell products requiring delivery or shipment by sea. See RESPONSE AB1-2. Likewise the Unocal Los Angeles Refinery's ship traffic figure, cited in the Los Angeles Refinery EIR and referred to by the commentor, are not shipments to Unocal's San Francisco Refinery, but other off-site transfers. All Los Angeles Refinery shipments to the San Francisco Refinery will be accommodated on existing Unocal ship calls. Thus, the County disagrees with the commentor that this Draft EIR underestimates ship traffic. i Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2. Comments and Responses Page 2-144 - RESPONSE AB2-12 NOX & SOX Emission Levels Air Quality The commentor asserts that the emissions from increased steam production should have been based on duct burner modifications, not a new package boiler. The County disagrees with this statement. The increased emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide from steam production were based on the package boiler, since this option would be the "worst-case" scenario (see Table 8-15, page 8-35 of the Draft EIR).Implementation of the duct burner option would result in no increase in emissions above the current permitted level for these pollutants. For sulfur dioxide, implementation of the duct burner option would increase sulfur dioxide emissions at the Steam 'Power Plant but sulfur dioxide emissions elsewhere in the refinery would be reduced, resulting in no net change in sulfur dioxide emissions from the refinery due to the project.2 Nitrogen oxide emissions at the Steam Power Plant would not increase as a result of increased duct firing. Any potential increase in nitrogen oxides would be controlled by operational adjustments (e.g., ammonia injection rate) to existing abatement equipment, specifically the selective catalytic recovery system. These issues are discussed in more detail in RESPONSES AB2-13 and AB2-14 for sulfur dioxide emissions and nitrogen oxide emissions, respectively. RESPONSE A112-13 SOX Emission Level Air Quality The commentor asserts that the Draft EIR should have calculated emissions from the duct burner using a sulfur concentration in refinery fuel gas of 230 parts per million volume (ppmv) rather than 100 parts per million volume as was done. The County disagrees with this assertion. The Draft EIR correctly calculated the emissions from increased steam production assuming 100 ppmv sulfur in fuel gas since this is the limit that the package boiler would be required to meet for BACT. The emissions from the package boiler represent the "worst-case" scenario for increased emissions from steam production. The commentor's calculation of increased sulfur dioxide due to the project is incorrect. Emissions of sulfur dioxide would not increase from the.refinery due to the project. No new significant impacts have been identified that would require mitigation. The"Draft EIR indicates that sulfur dioxide emissions would increase at the San Francisco Refinery due to the project. However,the Draft EIR overstates the change in sulfur dioxide emissions for the i Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-145 entire refinery. While sulfur dioxide emissions would increase at the Steam Power Plant and the new Hydrogen Plant due to increased and new fuel usage, emissions from the rest of the refinery would be reduced by an equivalent amount (on a pound for pound basis). Refinery fuel gas is a blend of natural gas and refinery gas produced in the refining process. The amount of refinery gas is unaffected by this project. Sulfur concentration in the fuel gas would decrease as a result of the increased firing because this increased fuel usage must be made up by bringing more natural gas into the refinery. The steam power plant currently meets a 100 ppmv sulfur dioxide emission level. While the new Hydrogen Plant and the package boiler, if necessary, would have to obtain new permits with conditions on the emissions of sulfur dioxide, actual sulfur dioxide emissions from the refinery would not change as a result of the Reformulated Gasoline Project. If the sulfur dioxide emissions projected for the Hydrogen Plant and the package boiler are removed from the emissions estimates in the Draft EIR, the conclusions regarding sulfur dioxide do not change. The proposed project would still have a significant and unavoidable impact on air quality due to peak daily emissions of sulfur dioxide from increased marine activity. See Impact 8-5, page 8-40 in the Draft EIR, for further discussion on these issues. This discussion is explanatory only and does not alter the meaning, analysis or conclusions drawn in the Draft EIR. RESPONSE AB2-14 NO, Emission Level Air Quality Contrary to the assertions made by the commentor,nitrogen oxide emissions at the steam power plant would not increase as a result of the project. No new significant impacts have been identified that require mitigation. The formula used by the commentor (see footnote 8 to paragraph two) to calculate emissions of nitrogen oxide is not appropriate because it does not account for additional controls that will accompany increased duct firing. Unocal has committed to meeting the existing nitrogen oxide mass emission limits with increased firing. This commitment, which would be incorporated into Unocal's Authority to Construct permit from the Air District,means that,even with increased firing, Unocal would not increase the total amount (the mass) of nitrogen oxide that it emits from the steam power plant. Nitrogen oxide mass emissions are currently within about 1% of all nitrogen oxide limits (concentration, lbs/hr, lbs/day, tons/yr). The same nitrogen oxide mass limits Indicates change to the text of the Draft EIR. All changes to each chapter are presented in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR. i Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2. Comments and Responses Page 2-146 _ would be met after implementation of the project with the increased duct firing option. To meet the same mass limits, the concentrations of nitrogen oxide would have to be reduced by increasing ammonia injection to the existing selective catalytic recovery system at the steam power plant. Based on the above information, the emissions estimates for the package boiler represent the worst- case scenario for nitrogen oxide emissions from increased steam production. Table 8-15, page 8-35 of the Draft EIR, estimates 6.8 tons/year of nitrogen oxides for increased steam production, which represents emissions of the package boiler. The Draft EIR, Impact 84, identified nitrogen oxide emissions as a significant and unavoidable impact. Implementation of the increased duct firing alternative rather than the package.boiler alternative would reduce the emissions from increased steam production by 6.8 tons/year. This reduction would mitigate some of the nitrogen oxide emission increases. The summary statement for Mitigation Measure 84, page 8-39 of the Draft EIR is revised to read " as follows: Mitigation Measure 84: Ad" t:Duct Bu*Mer'OptionNo Fe ' ilnocalshall Implement Lhe duct burner'option for incr�.ased steam production sne$sure will mjfigate annual average emissions of nitrngt n oxides to a levet ilial sS 1e85 than signil5cant iViaximum daily emisslons of nitrogen oxides remain �igniftcanf aad .... :..... ..... uuavoidstble sifter mittgattop In addition, the second paragraph of Mitigation Measure 8-4 on page 8-40 of the Draft EIR is revised to read: Best available control technology will be applied to all V&4(m"ty etivrant ad fled sources of nitrogen oxide emissions, which by definition means that no other feasible�.isitiyatitsl measures can be applied to these sources. Unocal shall implement the,.-,V burner option fpt 'uicreased:sieartt �roducct4A io reduce project erntssions of nttrogen raxides i�lnnu avers"cinisstonsoftitrogen oxides would no:longer`.be considered significant However; its maximum daily emissions of nitrogen oxides from stationary and marine project sources would still be considered a significant and unavoidable impact;;<duelmos entire `to .....:.. ::....::....................:... WO td til8rt a ira1 C. " I Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-147 RESPONSE AB2-15 Tank VOC Emissions Air Quality The commentor asserts that the Draft EIR overestimated the control efficiency for liquid balancing tank cleaning procedures and thus underestimated emissions of volatile-organic compounds. The commentor further asserts that these emissions must be mitigated or offset. BAAQMD regulation 8-5-328 allows either liquid balancing or control of vapors by 90%. This rule requires that these options be equivalent. The commentor provides no substantiation of the assertion that the liquid balancing method has a control efficiency of 50%. The liquid balancing tank cleaning procedure proposed by Unocal has an efficiency of at least 90%. This efficiency is accepted as so by industry and the BAAQMD. The 90% efficiency is based on an assumption that emissions from tank cleaning will be proportional to vapor pressure. The lowest vapor pressure is expected to be five pounds per square inch. The highest control vapor pressure (as indicated by Regulation 8 Rule 5)would be 0.5 pounds.per square inch. The control efficiency is calculated as uncontrolled (5 pounds per square inch) minus the proportion controlled (0.5/5 pounds), which equals 0.9'or 90%. The emissions estimates presented in the Draft EIR correctly assume a 90% control efficiency. The Draft EIR did not underestimate volatile organic compound emissions. RESPONSE AB2-16 P12V Emissions Air Quality The commentor asserts that the Draft EIR did not include relief emissions from pressure relief valves. This assertion is true. The proposed isopentane tanks are connected to and vent to a vapor recovery system which acts as a primary control inside the tank as required by BAAQMD Regulation 8-5. The pressure relief valves on the Isopentane tanks which vent to atmosphere are installed for emergency usage only. Estimating anticipated emissions to the atmosphere from these valves would be speculative at best, which is contrary to the intent of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15145). This position is consistent with the BAAQMD's policy which does not require emissions estimates for emergencies to be included in the Application for Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate. The BAAQMD is a responsible agency for this project. It should be noted that reported relief valve liftings cited by the commentor are not from tankage, but from processing equipment. Process equipment typically operates at much higher pressures and temperatures than the isopentane tanks. Emission potential from tanks is significantly lower than presented by the commentor. Rupture valves are-.the only alternative available for control of these pressure relief valves. However, rupture valves are technically infeasible in this application due to the low pressures involved. 'Ile variation in Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR - 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-148 "popping" of the rupture disks exceed the range of the relief valve. This information is explanatory only and does not change the conclusions in the Draft EIR. 'rhe County disagrees with the commentor that the relieving emissions from these valves should have been included in the EIR. RESPONSE AB2-17 Soil VOC Emissions Air Quality The commentor points out that the Draft EIR did not include volatile organic compound emissions from handling of waste soil contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. The commentor asserts that together with other volatile organic compound emissions,. these emissions would exceed the significance threshold for volatile organic compounds of 150 pounds per day. The commentor estimates maximum daily emissions from contaminated soils using equations published by the EPA and various factors including concentration of volatile organic compounds in pore space in ppm, excavation rate, air-filled porosity,etc. The commentor states that the EIR should be revised to include calculations of soil volatile organic compound emissions based on soil testing of each of the sites which will be excavated, and that mitigation measures should be identified to reduce construction related volatile organic compound emissions. The remainder of this response presents calculations of soil volatile organic compound emissions based on soil sampling, as requested by the t commentor. However, the analysis supports the conclusion in the Draft EIR that there are no significant impacts due to construction emissions of volatile organic compounds (Impact 8-1, page 8- 27 of the Draft EIR). Unocal hired an independent hydrogeologist to conduct investigations of the soil characteristics at each of the proposed construction sites (Montgomery Watson, 1993; Unocal, 1993). Soil containing hydrocarbons will be excavated from each of the proposed sites, which include Tanks 109, 110, and 310, and the Hydrogen Plant. Based on the sampling and analysis results from these investigations, the upper 95% confidence limit concentration for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline in soil that will be excavated during construction is 82.7 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) (or 817 parts per million [ppm]). The upper 95% confidence limit concentration was calculated rather than the average concentration as it provides a conservative estimate of the actual soil concentrations that may be encountered during excavation. By definition, this means that 95% of the soil encountered during r excavation will have concentrations less than the upper 95 percent confidence limit concentration of 817 mg/kg.3 Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Fina/EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-149 A total of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of soil will be excavated during construction activities. Of this total volume, about 40 percent will be excavated from the Tank 109 location, about 40 percent from the Tank 110 location, and about 20 percent from the Hydrogen Plant location. A minimal volume of soil will be excavated from the Tank 310 location as bedrock is encountered within a few feet of the ground surface in this area. At most, 300 cubic yards of soil will be excavated on any given day! As described in detail in the Attachment to this response, the estimate of the maximum air emission rate is based on U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)guidance entitled, "Estimation of Air Impacts for the Excavation of Contaminated Soils" (EPA, 1992). This same guidance was used to estimate the maximum air emission rate presented in the text of the comment. As site-specific soil data were not available to the commentor, Equation (2) (which is similar to Equation (3) on page 7 of the guidance document) was used, which requires input of an assumed air pore space concentration. The default value suggested by the guidance document of 10,000 ppm was used by the commentor to calculate the air emission rate, resulting in an estimated emission rate of 116 pounds per day (LB/day). Site-specific data regarding the concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbon as gasoline in soil are now available from subsurface investigations conducted at each of the proposed construction sites. As indicated by the EPA guidance document (Equation (6) on page 8), Equation (4) in the Attachment to this response provides a more accurate estimate of the air emission rate when site- specific soil concentration data are available. Using Equation (4), the estimated maximum air emission rate is approximately 21 LB/day, assuming concentration for total petroleum hydrocarbon as gasoline of 82.7 mg/kg and a maximum excavated soil volume of 300 cubic yards/days Therefore, this estimate presented above of 21 pounds per day represents the maximum daily emissions of volatile organic compounds from contaminated soil during construction. When added to the estimate of 78 pounds per day of construction volatile organic compounds in the Draft EIR (Table 8-9, page 8-25), the total maximum daily emissions of volatile organic compounds would be approximately 99 pounds per day. These emissions are below the significance threshold of 150 pounds per day of volatile organic compounds and thus would not result in a significant impact. No Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR - 2. Comments and Responses Page 2-150 mitigation measures are required. This.discussion and information is explanatory only and does not change the conclusions of the Draft EIR. ATTACHMENT TO RESPONSE A112-17 CALCULATION OF AIR EMISSIONS RATE DURING EXCAVATION UNOCAL - SAN FRANCISCO REFINERY' The estimate of the air emission rate during excavation is based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance, entitled "Estimation of Air Impacts for the Excavation of Contaminated Soils" (EPA, 1992). The emission rate (ER) from an excavation is equal to the sum of emission rates from the soil pore space (ERPS) and from diffusion (ERdin): ER = ERPS + ERdif (1) __ P MW 106 Ea Q Ec ERPS (2) RT P = Vapor pressure of contaminant (mmHg) MW = Molecular weight of contaminant (g/gmole) Ea = Air-filled porosity (dimensionless), default value of 0.44 Q = Excavation rate (m3/sec); assuming 300 cubic yd3/day Ec = Soil-gas to atmosphere exchange constant (dimensionless), default value of 0.33 R = Gas constant (mmHg - cm3/gmol - OK), 62,:361 T = Temperature (°K), default value of 298 Prepared by Montgomery Watson for Unocal Corporation, September 9, 1994. Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-151 The emission rate from diffusion is assumed to be zero as visibly contaminated soil will be covered as required; therefore, ER = ERps (3) Equation (2) generally over-estimates the emission rate significantly by using the vapor pressure rather than the partial pressure ins calculating the pore space air phase concentration of volatile contaminants. Furthermore, as soil concentration data are available for the excavation locations (Montgomery Watson, 1994), the following expression,which calculates mass emission rate based on the actual soil concentration, provides a more realistic estimate of the air emission rate. M Ea ER ps = (4) tom. M = Total mass of contaminant in a given volume of soil (g) t,,, = Time to excavate a given volume, S, of soil (hour), 8 SV = Volume of soil excavated (m3), 229 M = CSV 106(cm3/m3) (5) C = Soil concentration of contaminant, (g/cm3) C = C,,,. !3 10-6 (6) C. = Soil concentration of contaminant, (mg/kg) B = Soil bulk density (g/cm), 1.5 Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-152 Based on the results of the field data, the average concentration of gasoline is 80 mg/kg and the upper 95% confidence limit is 82.7 mg/kg. The maximum daily emission rate is estimated using the upper 95% confidence limit concentration and assuming the maximum volume of excavated soil per day is 300 yd3. From Eq. (6), C = (82.7)(1.5)(10-6) = 0.00012 glCM3 From Eq- (5), M = (0.00012)(229)(106) = 28,407 g From Eqs. (3) and (4), the maximum daily emission is: ER = (28,407)(.33) 8 hr 2.2 x 10-3.1b 8 hr ( daY ) g ( —) = 20.616/day RESPONSE AB2-18 Feasible Mitigation Measures Air Quality In the first paragraph, the commentor restates and summarizes portions of the Draft EIR. This statement does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR. In the second paragraph the commentor asserts that the Draft EIR did not consider feasible mitigations, particularly reductions from other parts of the refinery (outside the project) and additional controls on project components. The commentor concludes, that the EIR should address other mitigation measures,particularly those listed in comments AB2-19 through AB2-24. Responses to these comments are discussed below. r < Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-153 In the third through sixth paragraphs, the commentor cites CEQA and the commentor's, interpretations of CEQA. These statements do not address the adequacy or completeness of the EIR and thus will not be discussed further in this document. RESPONSE AB2-19 Feasible MItigation Measures Air Quality' In paragraph one, the commentor asserts that emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides,'sulfur dioxide, and small particulates could be fully mitigated by using common technology to reduce these emissions from other existing units at the refinery. The commentor recommends specific technologies. For each significant impact, this response identifies and evaluates feasible mitigation measures. These measures include the on-site (but outside the project) measures suggested by the commentor. They also include other measures, not suggested by the commentor,such as on-and off- site contemporaneous measures. Since CEQA requires that mitigation measures be reasonably related to significant impacts, we have evaluated mitigations for significant impacts triggered by excessive annual averages separate from those triggered by excessive maximum daily emissions. After revising the project impacts in response to more recent data on projected air emissions (see RESPONSE AB2-21), the significant of air quality impacts can be summarized as follows: Particulate VOC NO= CO SO2 Less than Less than Less than Annual Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Average % Marine 16% 5% 29% 2% 55% Reduction none approx. 2 < 1 none none Needed tons/year ton/ycar MaJdmum Less than Daily Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Emissions % Marine 81% 61% 92% 43% 96% Reduction > 85 lbs/day > 224 lbs/day > 1194 lbs/day none > 1325 lbs/day Needed (12 days/yr) (12 days/yr) (12 days/yr) (12 days/yr) Indicates change to the text of the Draft EIR. All changes to each chapter are presented in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR. I Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2. Comments and Responses Page 2-154 Thus the EIR must evaluate feasible mitigation measures to reduce annual averages of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides by approximately one to two tons each. Significant impacts due to maximum daily emissions are driven almost entirely by increased marine traffic,due to twelve additional marine vessels per year. Thus the EIR must also evaluate feasible mitigation measures to . reduce maximum daily emissions, up to twelve times per year, for particulates, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. Since mitigation measures must be appropriate to the significant impacts,we will evaluate measures for these two types of impacts(i.e.,annual averages and maximum daily emissions) separately. Volatile Organic Compounds Tank Retrofits. In paragraph one, the commen►or asserts that it may be possible to substantially reduce volatile organic compound emissions from older tanks beyond what is required by the BAAQMD rules or that Unocal could replace older tanks with new tanks meeting current Best Available Control Technology(BACT) requirements. Requiring BALI'retrofit of tanks would have no quantifiable impact on either annual average or maximum daily emissions of volatile organic compounds at the San Francisco Refinery. Most tanks at San Francisco Refinery in light hydrocarbon service,subject to Regulation 8-5,already have BACT installed,already have seals which meet BACT limits, or are on vapor recovery. There are no emission calculation methods or factors available to calculate the change in emissions (if any) in changing from. a complying double seal required by Regulation 8-5 to "zero-gap" (BACT) seals. These are not feasible mitigation measures. Valve Retrofits. In paragraph two, the commentor asserts that the County could require that Unocal install bellows sealed valves for all valves two inches and under. It is anticipated that several valve types, including bellows valves, could be utilized to meet the "leakless" fugitive emission goal of 100. Ppm. Bellow valves are considerably more expensive (four or five times) than standard valves. It is also unclear whether a significant emission reduction would occur as a result of any replacement. A recent study for the American Petroleum Institute completed by Radian Corporation found that current emission estimating techniques overestimate fugitive emissions. Using their data, a valve at a 100 ppm leak level would emit about 1 pound of volatile organic compounds per year. Additionally, bellows valves present accessibility problems. Bellows valves have much longer stems,making it much I Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-155 more difficult to retrofit(e.g., a 6-inch valve has a 5-foot valve stem). It may be physically impossible to install a bellows valve in the place of a standard valve because it will not fit or could not be operated without piping modification,which would increase emissions. Other Feasible Mitigation Measures. The two specific mitigation measures suggested by the commentor to reduce volatile organic compounds do not appear to be feasible. However,the County has evaluated and adopted additional measures. The Draft EIR did not consider air quality mitigation measures from outside the proposed project or from outside the refinery. The County has altered this approach. In the paragraphs above, the County evaluated and rejected two mitigation measures that would be outside the project but within the refinery. The County has identified two other mitigation measures -one from within the refinery and one from outside the refinery-that could mitigate the annual average emissions of volatile organic compounds to a less than significant level. Impact 8-3 in the Draft EIR is revised to include the following mitigation measure: Last paragraph of Impact 8-3, page 8-38 of the Draft EIR is amended as follows: . . . These offsets will be obtained through both on-site and off-site banked emissions. However, snee-the e&iit-e-banked emissionsm" not "ntemporaneous with the project and the eff site banked net emissieffi mdueiiem in the pr-ejee! are they.m". +e d not provide an actual reduction of volatile organic compound emissions in the project areas as measured against the baseline (described in the air quality environmental setting of this analysis). Thes, e:�veidelile`:'l=lowe er,since otafile organic coemissions are primas �?oFcancerit ..........'�'oriel.ozone fozmatio�,�contem raneous reduCttr�nS within tbe:"a ��b�sm �vvuld mitigate the physical ernnronmenial impacts ofincreasd volatile organic ompounds c eduetfl e:proposed project The following ;rt�hgat�vn measure.mould allow t3nocl to reduce volatile organic compounds,either at its refinery or elsewhere in the air basin This re... would mite the annual average emi5si1 can� However the igat . t �ai8ramumt tla emissionsvouldstill besignificant;due to the increase in marine xraffic v)•Lwelve manne Siris:�r yeaT Mitigation Measure 8-3 is revised as follows: Mitigation Measure 8-3. Source.Testing and:;Emissian:ControTs ....:. identified. Uel shall &':s' ource tests of"the bydrogen plant beateir and ,each of the sfea n turbinest confit m the annual average VOC emission increases and shall report the results W the f ountx wjthin 180 days of acbieving normal:operation These increases plus the Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Fina!EIR ? Comments and Responses Page 2-156 Increases of alf other sources of POC listed on 1'a:b1e 8.15 shall be considered the ttct ual increased volatile organic compounds due to the proposed project .,.If.thls aMual increase egisals or exceeds Z7 tons per year,then Uno6vshsu.takeone of the io3loi+�ng ncfions byY7aauary 11, 996 to reduce Yoldtlle 16'tomponnds is the iiayirea a)hr bssLi an iamannt that exceedszthe thiierence between she actual enussions sad ZT tans perear ,xr.: r.n..... .r rf:' "PraTe"aaateriii::: rineous o1Ls" : Ither:onsit =:or->ofi-`site: ' " >- :::e a:$;valveaeak:delYultionaaT0.0 arts: er`uiiliioiioxolatile:o : a:: `"::w"� und::-. ... italt>;,:`];<;:; �.:::. heT�npcul San Frundsco ReLnerysub�et�t to IQAAQ1VlA<3�"•"il�fiiii A4xv.C-:.i{,ivr..rMW.6::..-0CK•%Siikw..,.wu...i„w....n w,.....v.J%n.Qnttiv.xmn.i.xr..:::•:.K:.-A:ivv....w,:.....,.....,:,...n.w rxx.Gv„Y.,n•.,.n,+v0:tnSM1M.gA�''�' 'Cx• 8�18 �ffectiveryJau `::•: '1";1996; li3.iiiacaima ele�tao�m Iemeat�ettlier;oitlie above actions without a oarre tes#�.us�n pro�eeted Increase In volatile organic�compountis us_Tinally approved by fhe TiAAQMD to lbe:the actual increase, in this case, a source test will not be required: 'QYithfn .... sof aclveng normal operxtion, Jnocal must present analrysts tv.albe A:; ::.. btty x Community pevelopment�epurtment md,cui,ng; {ij Llte .amounf n xeducix)f iaeeded,.,r���;:�vblcb:;:a tioa:.fiasiheen chosen and l3)hpw hEchosen yttoa wilt< �educe<#be �iait3ssosta`)o�Io27�fo � pec<�eax Best Available Control Technology will be applied to all stationary sources of volatile organic compound emissions�within `theProject, which by definition means that no other feasible measures can be applied to these sources Ungcal can.mittgate the increase to ax�xtua:av,erag volatilergantc compoundemissions either 3iy�1)purchasing contemporaneous offsetswwttk tie air basin,or ik2)by�niplernentsng a ltl parts per million valve teak definitiod f�ail" es subject#o BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule8,by I996 Should.'Bou=:testutg tndtcateiaiMtle p ©yvcCn fact eatcecl� the standard ostgn� f Gcance, then Unocaih l can m4gate te 3mpac to a less Than stgni&cant levet irIi3vyeveic`>#)iis:'mitt him ineasurewouldttatsu>ficient reduce:the s firant<m•�a�ttiueta �awmnm.da,iy etausstons, 4vhtch.remain s� ificant and ut� ivo�dable —T ..�,�rees�-� Sixty percent of the project's maximum daily emission of volatile organic compounds are due to increased marine traffic. Engines located on commercial marine vessels are typically diesel-fired and used either for propulsion or electrical generation. Volatile organic compound emissions from these engines are likely to be very small; the major emission of volatile organic compounds will occur during loading and unloading operations at the terminal. These loading and unloading emissions can be mitigated through the use of vapor recovery for loading and by displacing the vapors during ballasting into"a cargo tank being simultaneously unloaded. The Unocal operation already includes vapor recovery and controls of emission during ballasting. Another potential mitigation measure would be Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-157 to reduce marine traffic. The maximum daily emission would not change, since it is due to just one marine vessel. However, the significant impact would occur less frequently if marine traffic due to the project were decreased. The estimated increase of twelve ships per year is a conservative projection, intended to ensure that the Unocal project did not cause more impacts than reflected in the Draft EIR. Thus it would be difficult for Unocal to commit to reduced marine tragic at this stage. There are no other sources of volatile organic compounds on site that Unocal could shut down, on less than a days notice,•that would be appropriate to the impact. It is not practical to temporarily shut down operating units, on short notice, to mitigate the arrival of a single ship. In addition, it would not be appropriate under CEQA to require that Unocal offset these maximum daily emissions,which would be significant at most twelve times a year, by shutting down an operating unit with an equivalent maximum daily emission. As revealed by Table 8-13, that would require shutting down an operation with one to two times the total volatile organic emissions of the proposed project. This measure would overcompensate for the significant impact and thus would not be consistent with CEQA(see Remy,"Guide to California Environmental Quality Act,"page 198, 1993). Therefore,the emission of volatile organic compounds due to maximum daily emissions is considered a significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project. Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Selective Catalytic Reduction Devices. In paragraph three, the commentor asserts that Unocal could reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides by installing selective catalytic reduction devices on existing combustion sources at the refinery. BAAQMD Regulation 9 requires installation of such equipment on gas turbines and on boilers at petroleum refineries in 1997 and 2002,respectively. Implementation of these regulations will result in the reduction of nitrogen oxide emissions desired by the commentor. These regulations would be implemented in a similar time frame to the project. Since these reduction are already required by the Air District, they cannot be counted as mitigation for the proposed project. However, revisions to Mitigation Measure 8-4, presented in RESPONSE AB2-14, mitigates- to less than significant the annual average increases in nitrogen oxides due to the proposed project. Thus no other mitigations are needed that would seek to reduce these annual average emissions. Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Response Page 2-158 Other Potential Mitigation Measures. The maximum daily emissions of nitrogen oxides expected for this proposed project are considered significant and unavoidable; 92% of these emissions would be caused by marine vessels. Control of oxides of nitrogen emissions from diesel-fired engines using combustion modifications is difficult but can be accomplished to some degree with derating, air/fuel ratio modifications, and engine timing retard. Generally, nitrogen oxides can be lowered by the use of combustion modifications to only approximately 9 grams per horsepower-hour. Add-on nitrogen oxide controls that may be available include water injection and selective catalytic reduction. Water injection has the potential in the future to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions, although this technology has inherent difficulties associated with the: removal of the lubricant in the cylinder that must be overcome before this technique is considered feasible. Selective catalytic reduction has been tried with some success on diesel engines and may be available. The EPA indicated the following in their 1992 report (EPA 450/3-92-004)on the availability of nitrogen oxides control techniques to diesel engines: "Ibere is very limited experience with this technology for diesel IC engines. In Japan, [selective catalytic reduction] has been applied to natural gas- and oil-fired engines. Two of these three units started operation in the 1978-80 period, with another unit coming on-line in 1989. Reported NO.removals for two of the units have been 85 and 90 percent, although significant daily maintenance is required to keep the catalyst soot free. In West Germany, [selective catalytic reduction] has been applied to engines firing natural, gas, dual duel, oil, and landfill gas." The California Air Resources Board has been investigating potential control techniques available for internal combustion engines found on commercial marine vessels. While any control requirement will not likely be instituted before 1998, they have discussed the techniques listed above as well as the potential use of electric tugs to maneuver vessels in port. Since there is as yet no conclusion about whether these mitigation measures would be technically and economically feasible or about their degree of effectiveness, we cannot conclude that NO. controls on marine vessels would be feasible mitigation for maximum daily emissions of nitrogen oxides generated by marine vessels. The arguments used above concerning mitigation for marine vessel emissions of volatile organic compounds also applies to emissions of nitrogen oxides. However, in Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-159 this case requiring offset to reduce, these maximum daily emissions would be equivalent to an operation with twelve times the NO,, emissions of the proposed project. Again, compensating maximum daily emissions by requiring shutdowns of ongoing operations would overcompensate the impact and would not be reasonably related to the impact. This information is explanatory only and does not alter the analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR concerning mitigation for maximum daily emissions of nitrogen oxides. Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Refining Fuel Gas. In paragraphs four and five, the commentor suggests that Unocal could reduce the sulfur content of the fuel gas at the refinery to mitigate significant increases of sulfur dioxide. The significant impact to be mitigated is Impact 8-5, the maximum daily emissions of sulfur dioxide, largely due to marine traffic. Annual average emissions of sulfur dioxide do not exceed the standard of significance (see the Draft EIR, page 840). Sulfur concentration in the fuel gas will decrease as a result of the increased duct firing at the steam power plant because this increased fuel usage must be made up by bringing more natural gas into the refinery. Further reduction of the sulfur in the fuel gas at the refinery would require additional heaters and/or control equipment that would result in increased emissions from combustion, increased air toxics, increased hazardous waste, and other secondary impacts. These measures would increase emissions of sulfur dioxide, as well as other constituents. Therefore, on-site actions to reduce the sulfur in Unocal's fuel gas would not mitigate the significant increase in maximum daily sulfur dioxide emissions caused by emissions from marine traffic. Other Potential Mitigation Measures. Since the annual average emission of sulfur dioxide is not considered a significant impact, the discussion of potential mitigation measures should focus on measures to reduce maximum daily emissions. In this case 96% of the maximum daily sulfur dioxide emissions is due to marine traffic. Sulfur dioxide emissions occur from the oxidation of sulfur in the diesel fuel. These emissions can be reduced by the use of low sulfur diesel and is most likely feasible since tankers typically have the ability to carry more than one type of fuel. The twelve additional marine vessels anticipated with the reformulated fuels project would not be Unocal owned ships. Thus it would be difficult for Unocal to require that they use low-sulfur fuel. I Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-160 _ However, this impact could be mitigated by requiring Unocal to use low-sulfur fuel on a certain percentage of its own marine vessels serving the San Francisco Refinery. Unocal currently requires its own vessels to use low-sulfur fuel while operating in the Bay Area. Thus this requirement is not a feasible mitigation measure since it would not result in a reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions. In the last paragraph,the commentor instructs the County to evaluate these measures in the EIR and adopt those that are feasible. The discussion above demonstrates that the measures suggested by the commentor either are not feasible or would fail to provide any future improvement in air quality. However, the County has further evaluated mitigation measures, including those outside of the project and outside of the refinery, and has revised the EIR to include two additional measures — contemporaneous offsets to reduce volatile organic compounds and increased duct firing to reduce nitrogen oxides. These measures were discussed in the Draft EIR. The revisions simply accept these as mitigation whereas they were not treated as such in the Draft EIR. Even though the EIR, as revised, mitigates all of the significant impacts associated with increases in annual averages, four maximum' daily emission impacts are still significant and unavoidable. No "significant and unavoidable" impact has been revised to "less than significant." The revisions simply included additional mitigation measures. These revisions thus make only minor changes in the conclusions about impacts contained in the Draft EIR and do not represent substantial changes in the information presented for public comment. Thus the County disagrees with the commentor that the EIR should be recirculated. RESPONSE AB2-20 BACT Air Quality The commentor asserts that Unocal has not applied Best Available Control Technology (BACT) in all cases for project components' increases in volatile organic compounds. The commentor also asserts that there are four technologically feasible mitigation measures that could be required for project components that would reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds below the annual significant level of 27 tons per year and that the project impact of volatile organic compounds would then be less than significant. The County disagrees with this comment. Contrary to the commentor's assertion, Unocal has proposed BACT for all new and modified sources included in the Reformulated Gasoline Project. Page 8-38 of the Draft EIR lists the BACT measures for volatile organic compounds proposed at the time the Draft :EIR was published. All BACT Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Respon es Page 2-161 measures for new and modified sources would be approved by the BAAQMD prior to project approval by the County and the District. Two measures recommended by the commentor are not considered BACT and are thus not considered as feasible mitigation. The BAAQMD determines BACT for each project component. The BACT determination includes consideration of economically and technically feasible control measures. Consideration of additional mitigation measures at stationary source project components would exceed the "rule of reason" that has been established through CEQA. An analysis of mitigation measures must be judged against a"rule of reason," indicating"reasonable mitigation measures" that . can feasibly attain the project's objectives (reference, Univ. Neighbors vs. Regents of UC). . . . CEQA does not require analysis of every imaginable alternative or mitigation measure; its concern is with feasible means of reducing environmental effects . . . 'Feasible' is defined as 'capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social,.and technological factors.'[cite[ The statue does not demand what is not realistically possible, given the limitation of time, energy and funds.' [cite] Instead the requirement that the EIR identify alternatives and mitigating measures'must be judged against a rule of reason . . . ." (Bonman v. City of Petaluma (1986) [see also CEQA, Section 21061.1] Hence,the County considers Best Available Control Technologies as defined by the District to reflect technical and economic feasibility. The County considers them the most feasible mitigation measures for project components to control for volatile organic compound emissions. For sources, such as mobile sources, which are not subject to the Air District's BACT program, other feasible mitigation measures are considered. As asserted by the commentor as technologically feasible,the Reformulated Gasoline project includes low emission graphite packing for valves. In addition, all new project pumps will have seal-less design or will be equipped with double mechanical seals. The project includes the use of graphite gaskets and an approved inspection and maintenance program for flanges. These measures are discussed in the Draft EIR on page 8-38. Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR " 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-162 _ The commentor asserts that using closed-loop sampling systems is also technologically feasible. .To avoid flushing required by closed-loop sample lines, low hold-up sample valves are selected for the Reformulated Gasoline Project. The two systems are equivalent in that neither purges hydrocarbons to the process drains. The low hold-up sample valves are proposed as BACT for this project and the measure must be approved by the BAAQMD prior to project approval. The commentor also asserts that equipping the pressure relief valves with rupture disks is technically feasible. Please see RESPONSE AB2-16 regarding rupture disks on pressure release valves. The potential uses of these specific components are discussed in RESPONSES AB2-21 through 24. RESPONSE AB2-21 Flanges Air Quality All flanges in hydrocarbon service would use graphitic gaskets, as was correctly stated in the Draft EIR on page 8-28. The Application for Authority to Construct from the BAAQMD has been revised to reflect the graphitic gaskets. This modification to the Authority to Construct will result in a decrease in emissions of volatile organic compounds,as presented in the Draft EIR. Tables 8-13, 14, and 15 of the Draft EIR are revised as shown below to include all changes to emissions estimates since the Draft EIR. These changes have all resulted in a decrease in daily and annual volatile organic compound emissions. The changes since preparation of the Draft EIR, including graphitic gaskets,would decrease annual volatile organic compound emissions from 33.6 to 28.1 tons per year, - still above the annual average significance threshold of 27 tons per year. Therefore, this change would not affect the analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft ETR. RESPONSE AB2-22 Pump Seals Air Quality All new pumps in light-liquid hydrocarbon service would be equipped with double seals or would be of a seal-less design. The first two words, "Where feasible," are removed from the second paragraph of page 8-38 of the Draft EIR. Indicates change to the text of the Draft EIR. All changes to each chapter are presented in Chapter 3-of this Final EIR. I a 0 h N. - _ ...:v.; 00 c ,.a : ►. .: :s W w Z - aa 0 Inca � M .W.7 EW Z j`►v, veo *�. v oo N N W to OF w OG Q ..a L to C . 03 C4 10 C14 co U Q O 1 a O Z o 0 0 a i 0 o z _ y O p o LA ob r OD � N v H r Z � a A G 3 oil MG ^ W qQq a > o .n L� � p PA -- r ti H O n i p TABLE 8-15 UNOCAL SAN FRANCISCO REFORMULATED GASOLINE PROJECT STATIONARY SOURCE CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS E ::Annual.Eniissions {toig/year)> Hydrogen Plant t New Heater 12.10 4.60 3.63 2.09 23.58 Fugitives — — — 4.48 — w SUBTOTAL 12.10 4.60 - 3.63 3:62 2358 C5 Handling/Benzene Saturation Facilities Fugitives _ _ _ &-29 — SUBTOTAL — _ _ &. 9 _ - Steam Production Increase - Duct Burner Modifications or New Package Boiler 6.82 6.02 2.103 1.303 20.92 SUBTOTAL 6.8 6.0 1 2.10 130 20.9 Tankage I New Fixed Roof Tanks . — — _ 5.51 — New Floating Roof Tanks _ — _ 10.14 New Tank Fugitives — — — 6.-14 — 4AS. SUBTOTAL -- -- — — 20 3. STATIONARY SOURCE TOTAL 18.9 10.6 5.73 32.23 44.46 Z6�3 Source: ENSR Consulting and Engineering,Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate, Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project, December 1993. l i The emissions shown represent the higher emissions of the two steam production increase alternatives. I .2 Due to package boiler. s .Due to duct burner modifications. .A September 8, 1994 correspondence from Unocal to the Air District indicates minor variations from these numbers, but did not result In any changes In conclusions. Mitigation Measure 8.3 will utilize the final emission estimates plus source testing to i determine the amount of reduction needed. i I Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR ? Comments and Responses Page 2-166 The Application for. Authority to Construct from the BAAQMD has been revised to reflect this change. This modification to the Authority to Construct will result in a decrease in emissions of volatile organic compounds as presented in the Draft EIR. As shown in RESPONSE AB2-21,Tables 8-13 through 8-15 of the Draft EIR are revised to include all changes to emissions estimates since the Draft EIR. The changes since publication of the Draft EIR have all resulted in a,decrease in daily and annual volatile organic compound emissions. These changes, would result in a decrease in annual volatile organic compound emissions from 33.6 to 28.1 tons per year, still above the annual average significance threshold of 27 tons per year. This change in the; text of the Draft EIR would not affect analysis or conclusions presented in the EIR. RESPONSE AB2-23 Rupture Disks Air Quality Rupture disks have been deemed infeasible for this project as described in RESPONSE AB2-16. This determination must be approved by the BAAQMD as fulfilling BACT requirements prior to project approval. As discussed in RESPONSE AB2-20, the County uses the District's BACT determination of feasibility in deciding whether additional mitigation measures for stationary sources are available. RESPONSE AB2-24 Sampling Systems Air Quality The commentor asserts that the use of closed-loop sampling systems would result in lower emissions from the proposed project and are required by federal law. This assertion is not correct. Closed loop sample systems reduce sample purge to process drains by recirculating purged material back into the process line. The "low hold up" sample valve does the same thing try not requiring sample purge (valve is continually purged) and is installed directly on the process line. Thus these systems are equivalent. See also RESPONSE AB2-20. RESPONSE AB2-25 TBACT vs. BACT Air Quality As stated in the Draft EIR, the Reformulated Gasoline Project will include toxic best available control technology (TBACI) for all new and modified sources. In the case of this project, the BAAQMD has not required any additional measures beyond BACT to control emissions of toxics. Therdfore, in this case, TBACT is equivalent to BACT. And, in fact, TBACT is never less stringent than BACT. i Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-167 RESPONSE AB2-26 Toxic Emission Factors Public Health The commentor asserts that the toxic emission estimates and risk assessment did not include certain constituents in the emissions from the duct burner modifications and the EIR must be modified to reflect the emissions of these constituents. The commentor also questions why Table 5-1 of the project Health Risk Assessment shows emissions of particular chemicals when Appendix C of the application for authority to constructipermit to operate shows no emissions ("NA") of those pollutants. With regard to the emission factors, the health risk assessment used factors specified in the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) Combustion Device Emissions Database (1992) for duct burners with SCR and CO catalyst. These factors are based on source tests of similar devices. The ten pollutants in question appear not to have been measured during the source tests for these devices. Although other emission factors for other types of combustion devices are available (such as the Shall data for heaters), the two combustion device types (conventional heaters and duct burners)were not similar enough and an extrapolation of heater data to duct burner data would have been inappropriate. The BAAQMD concurs in this conclusion. Therefore, the most appropriate factors for calculating emissions from the proposed duct burners were used. Some of the constituents—arsenic,cadmium,copper,formaldehyde,and hexavalent chromium—were included in the risk assessment but did not appear to be components in the duct burner emissions. This is explained by the fact that the emission factors, as noted above, do not account for emissions of those pollutants from duct burners. The breakdown of project emission sources provided in Table. 3-1 of the project Health Risk Assessment indicates that sources other than the duct burners accounted for emissions of those pollutants. Based on the above discussion, modification of the project health risk assessment and the presentation of impacts from toxic air pollutants in the EIR do not need to be modified. RESPONSE AB2-27 Ship Emission Factors Public Health The commentor asserts that peak hourly emissions from ship combustion and loading activities would be substantial and should be included in the acute health impact analysis. The acute hazards index Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 3. Comments and Responses Page 2-168 associated with the air toxic emissions from the 12 additional ship trips due to the Reformulated Gasoline Project were evaluated to determine an upper bound on the acute risks of exposure to air toxics. Air Toxic Emissions Emissions associatedwith the combustion of fuel during maneuvering and hoteling were estimated based on chemical-specific emission factors and total fuel use. Emission Factors Emission factors for internal combustion engines published by the Ventura Air Pollution Control District (Ventura APCD) were used. These emission factors are in units of pounds of chemical emitted per gallon of fuel used. The Ventura APCD has emission factors for 22 chemicals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (grouped as one chemical). Table 1 (on the following page) presents the chemical-specific emission factors. Emissions and acute hazard indices were estimated for all 23 chemicals whether or not the chemical emissions were below the BAAQMD emission threshold. Fuel Use Table 2 presents the fuel use during maneuvering and hoteling of the ships. As seen from Table 2, the fuel use during maneuvering and hoteling was estimated to be 38 gallons per hour and 18 gallons per hour, respectively. TABLE 2 SHIP FUEL USAGE RATES MANEUVERING' HOTELINGZ Hourly Fuel Use (gaVhr) 38 18 Annual Fuel Use (gal/hr)3 2,760 6,300 1 Maneuvering refers to movement of ship within Bay. 2 - Hoteling refers to the period of the ship's visit at the marine terminal. 3 Annual fuel throughput is based on 12 ship trips. Each ship trip includes 6. hours of maneuvering and 30 hours of hoteling. Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Commenu and Responses Page 2-169 TABLE 1 INTERNAL COMBUSTION EMISSION FACTORS EAESSION`FACTOR ,.:bs/gal) Acetaldehyde 7.83E-04 Acrolein 339E-05 Arsenic 1.60E-06 - Benzene 1.86E-04 Beryllium 1.60E-06 Butadiene-1,3 2.17E-04 Cadmium 1.50E-06 Chlorobenzene 2.00E-07 Chromium (Hexavalent) 2.00E-07 Copper 4.10E-06 Formaldehyde 1.73E-03 Hydrogen Chloride 1.86E-04 Lead 830E-06 Manganese 3.10E-06 Mercury 2.00E-06 Naphthalene 1.97E-05 Nickel 3.90E-06 Propylene 4.67E-04 Selenium 2.20E-06 Toluene 1.05E-04 Xylene 4.24E-05 Zinc 2.24E-05 PAHs (Napth-excluded) 3.62E-05 Source: Ventura County APCD AB2588 Combustion Emission Factors, December 1992- 2-169 9922-169 Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR ► 2. Comments and Responses Page 2-170 Although annual fuel use is not used to estimate the acute hazard index, the annual fuel use estimates are presented for completeness. The annual fuel use was based on 12 ship trips, each ship maneuvering for six hours and hoteling for 30 hours. Table 3 presents the maximum hourly emissions (based on 38 gallons of fuel use) and the annual average emissions (based on total fuel use during maneuvering and hoteling of 12 ships). Acute Hazard Index The acute hazard index.associated with the maximum hourly emissions resulting from the combustion of fuel was estimated using the air dispersion Integrated Gausian Model (IGM) and the ACE2588 model developed by the Santa Barbara Air Quality Management District. These two models were also used for the Reformulated Gasoline Project health risk assessment. Assumptions in the IGM Model As seen from Table 2, the maximum fuel use occurs during ship maneuvering. Emissions during ship maneuvering are exhausted throughout the ship route. The maximum impact to the population would occur if the ship were to maneuver for one hour close to the Unocal refinery. This worst-case scenario was used to estimate the acute hazard index associated with emissions from the ship exhaust. The impacts were estimated based on the combustion of 38 gallons of fuel in the vicinity of the marine terminal. Actual fuel use is expected to be less, more likely closer to 18 gallons that are used during one hour of hoteling. As a result, the estimated acute hazard index is expected to be an overestimate. An area 100 by 100 meters was used to define the emission source. Use of this small area is expected to predict overestimates in the hazard index since the emission source during maneuvering is expected to be more than 100 square meters. One full year of site-specific meteorological data were used to identify the hour that would predict the maximum impacts. In reality, if the ship is not maneuvering in the vicinity of the refinery for that hour, the. hazard index is expected to be lower. Unocal Refomudx,-d Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-171 TABLE 3 AIR TOXIC EMISSIONS FROM SHIP MANUVEZING AND HOTELING EMISSIONS EMISSION CREMICAL FACTOR" HOURLY= ANNUALS Obs/gal) (P ) (gds) Acetaldehyde 7.83E-04 3.75E-03 1.02E-04 Acrolein 339E-05 1.62E-04 4.42E-06 i Arsenic1.60E-06 7.67E-06 209E-07 Benzene 1.86E-04 8.93E-04 2.43E-05 - i Beryllium 1.60E-06 7.67E-06 2.09E-07 Butadiene-1,3 2.17E-04 1.04E-03 2.84E-05 - Cadmium 1.50E-06 7.19E-06 1.96E-07 - 3 Chlorobenzene 2.00E-07 9.58E-07 2.61E-08 i Chromium (Hexavalent) 2.00E-07 958E-07 2.61E-08 Copper 4.10E-06 1.96E-05 5.35E-07 Formaldehyde 1.73E-03 8.27E-03 2.25E-04 Hydrogen Chloride 1.86E-04 8.93E-04 2.43E-05 Lead 8.30E-06 3.98E-05 1.08E-06 Manganese 3.10E-06 1.49E-05 4.04E-07. Mercury 2.00E-06 9.58E-06 2.61E-07 Naphthalene 1.97E-05 9.44E-05 2.57E-06 Nickel 3.90E-06 1.87E-05 5.09E-07 Propylene 4.67E-04 2.24E-03 6.09E-05 Selenium 2.20E-06 1.05E-05 2.87E-07 Toluene 1.05E-04 5.05E-04 1.37E-05 Xylene 4.24E-05 2.03E-04 5.53E-06 Zinc 2.24E-05 1.07E-04 2.92E-06 PAHs (Napth-excluded) 3.62E-05 1.73E-04 4.72-06 1 Source: Ventura County APCD AB2588 Combustion Emission Factors,December 1992 2 Hourly emissions are based on one hour of manuvering operations. J Annual emissions are based on 12 ship trips. Each ship includes 6 manuvering hours and 30 t hoteling hours. Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2. Comments and Responses Page 2-172 Summary and Results The acute hazard index associated with emissions from fuel combustion during one hour of ship maneuver operations was estimated to be 0.0712. The location of this maximum impact is at the northern tip of the refinery boundary. That is, if an individual were to be located at the northern boundary of the refinery for one hour, and if a ship were to be maneuvering in the vicinity of the refinery for that hour, and if the meteorological conditions in that hour were such that the maximum impacts were to occur, the individual would be exposed to a hazard index of 0.0712. The hazard index associated with the emissions of all other Reformulated Gasoline Project sources(except ship emissions) was estimated to be 0.00124. An upper bound on the maximum acute hazard index for the project including ship activities may be defined by adding the maximum acute hazard indices for the Reformulated Gasoline Project and the ship activities. This total is an upper bound, not a true estimate, because the maximum impact locations estimated for the ship impacts and the Reformulated Gasoline Project impacts are about 500 meters apart. In addition, the hours which predict the maximum hazard indexes are different for the ship and Reformulated Gasoline Project sources. As a result, if the Health Risk Assessment was revised to include ship operations, the maximum acute hazard index would be lower than the total presented in this evaluation. Table 4 presents the acute hazard index and maximally impacted location associated with the emissions from the combustion of fuel during one hour of ship maneuvering operations and from all other Reformulated Gasoline Project sources. The total of the two, is 0.07244, which is far less than the significance criteria of 1.0. Therefore, the addition of ship operations is not expected to result in a significant acute risk. This information is explanatory only and does not alter the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR. RESPONSE AB2-28 Effects of Oxygenates Public Health The potential for adverse health and odor impacts resulting from the use of oxygenates are discussed in RESPONSES AB2-29 and AB2-30. Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-173 TABLE 4 ACUTE HAZARD INDEX LOCATION - H.I. UTM X UTM Y - Ship Emissions 0.0712 565035 . 4211750 RFG Emissions 0.00124 565395 4211460 RESPONSE A112-29 Oxygenate Odors Public Health The San Francisco Refinery currently imports and stores MTBE. While MTBE can have an aggravating odor, MTBE is currently handled at the site without associated odor problems. As a result of BACT requirements on the project, most project components with fugitive missions are highly controlled or vent to vapor recovery systems. Thus, project increases in MTBE use would not result in substantial increases in fugitive emissions of MTBE or odors from the refinery compared to existing refinery operations. Therefore, the County disagrees with the commentor that fugitive emissions of odorous oxygenates could be substantial and should be further evaluated. RESPONSE AB2-30 Oxygenate Hazards Public Health The commentor asserts that workers at the Unocal refinery, others who handle, transport, and dispense reformulated gasoline,as well as motorists may be exposed to high concentrations of MTBE. The commentor asserts that this exposure may cause significant adverse health impacts and that the potential impact to workers and the public due to acute and chronic exposures to MTBE should be fully disclosed in the EIR and measures recommended to minimize the impact. The project itself does not include the use of reformulated gasoline. The commentor eludes to two types of potential health impacts due to MTBE. The first concerns the potential health effects on those that use or are exposed to reformulated gasoline containing MTBE—motorists,service station i Unocal Refomiulared Gasoline Project Administrative Final E1R a Comments and Responses Page 2-174 operators, general public adjacent to transportation arteries. The potential health effects of MTBE on consumers is subject to debate. While many have raised questions about the potential health effects of MTBE in gasoline, the State of California has currently concluded that MTBE in gasoline does not present an unacceptable health effect on consumers and service station operators. The U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development has prepared a document, "Assessment of Potential Health Risks of Gasoline Oxygenated with MBTE," which is still in draft form and.not available to the public. This document may resolve some of the uncertainty concerning MTBEs toxicity. Once toxicity is confirmed,to evaluate these potential health effects would also depend on location-specific factors that vary dramatically from site to site. Such factors as nearby uses, local habitats, local meteorological conditions, local environmental regulations, vapor control systems at gas stations, and others would be critical to any analysis concerning health impacts on gasoline users. Given the undefined nature of end use at remote locations,any analysis would be speculative and indeterminate and could not be effectively conducted within this EIR. Where evaluation of an impact is too speculative, CEQA Guidelines(Section 15145) instructs the lead agency to note its conclusion (as done in the two previous paragraphs) and terminate the discussion of this impact. The second type of potential health impact concerns refinery workers exposed to MTBE while manufacturing reformulated gasoline. The San Francisco Refinery already stores MTBE and uses it in the manufacture of reformulated gasoline. The proposed project would increase the on-site storage and handling of MTBE to make reformulated gasoline. Thus the increased handling and storage of MTBE could result in some increased fugitive emissions of MTBE to the atmosphere and potential exposure of humans on-site and off-site. The commentor correctly states that if humans were exposed to elevated concentrations of MTBE, the significance of these elevated concentrations is presently uncertain because agencies that normally set standards for worker safety and ambient air quality have not yet established standards for MTBE. For this reason, evaluation of the potential health impacts due to the handling and storage of MTBE associated with this project would not be possible at this time and would be speculative at best. Until the scientific community reaches some consensus concerning the potential toxic effects of MTBE,we cannot project health affects due to its use. Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines specifically limits Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-175 the responsibility of the lead agency in such speculation. Similarly, evaluation of potential mitigation measures would not be possible without a means to measure the significance of the impact and the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. CEQA requires that mitigation measures relate reasonably to the impact [Section 21178.1(8)] and that mitigation measures take care not to overcompensate for significant impacts. Given the wide debate in the scientific and regulatory community about the potential health impacts on both consumers and workers exposed to MTBE, and the speculative nature of such impact analysis at this point in time, any mitigation measures affecting both workers and consumers would be extremely speculative. It would be mere guesswork to assess whether the measures are feasible or effective in mitigating the impact. Thus, the County disagrees with the commentor that the EIR should include analysis of the health effects of MTBE and design mitigation measures to reduce exposure to MTBE. RESPONSE AB2-31 Selenium Hydrology The commentor notes that selenium is released during a number of refining processes, including hydrocracking and hydrotreating. The commentor also asserts that selenium would be produced by the new and modified units, including the Unisar, which produces jet fuel and is a hydrotreater, and by the Mid-Barrel Blend,which produces diesel. The commentor also believes that the ten proposed new tanks would also contribute selenium to Unocal's wastewater. The commentor is correct that selenium is released from crude oil during hydrocracking and hydrotreating processes. However, as proposed, the Reformulated Gasoline Project does not have the potential to increase discharges of selenium in refinery wastewater because of two key reasons: 1) the Reformulated Gasoline Project would not change Unocal's hydrotreating capabilities; and 2) the Reformulated Gasoline Project would not increase crude oil throughput. The San Francisco Refinery currently has excess hydrogen and steam production capacity. As addressed in RESPONSES AB2-2 and AB24, excess hydrogen and steam are necessary to ensure adequate supplies during emergencies or during normal operational changes. As addressed in RESPONSE AB2-2, San Francisco Refinery hydrotreating capacity is not related to hydrogen or steam production. Hydrotreating capacity is determined by physical limitations. After completion of the Reformulated Gasoline Project, the San Francisco Refinery would continue to have excess hydrogen and steam capacity, and hydrotreating capacity would still be physically limited. The Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR ' 2 Commems and Responses Page 2-176 proposed project would not affect or modify the San Francisco Refinery's hydrotreating capacity, nor allow new hydrotreating feeds. As stated in the first paragraph on page 3-27 of the Draft EIR, the ]Reformulated Gasoline Project does not propose to increase the amount of crude throughput. 'Che San Francisco Refinery is currently restricted from increasing crude throughput by crude throughput limits set by BAAQMD on the Coker Unit, as part of a coker expansion project in 1983. Since crude is the source of selenium,the production of selenium is therefore limited. Additionally,the"diversion".of stock refers to the shifting of heavier gasoline materials into diesel stocks (see page 3-12 of the Draft EIR). This diversion would not change the selenium loading of the San Francisco Refinery, since both these streams are hydrotreated. The changes proposed by the Reformulated Gasoline Project would affect materials after having been processed in hydrotreaters. As accurately stated by the commenter, the San Francisco Refinery currently meets Phase II sulfur limits. Since additional sulfur removal would not be needed, no change would occur in the San Francisco Refinery's hydrotreating capabilities as a result of the proposed project. Further, neither the Unisar (Unit 248) or the Mid-Barrel Blend is a hydrotreater. The Unisar is an aromatics saturation unit, and the Mid-Barrel Blend is a gasoline and diesel blending unit where components are combined to produce salable gasoline and diesel. As discussed in RESPONSE AB2- 5, no sulfur removal takes place in either unit. Moreover, the ten new tanks that would be added as part of the Reformulated Gasoline Project would not contribute to sulfur removal. As stated on pages 3-35 to 3-37 of the Draft EIR, the new tanks would be used to store additional reformulated fuel additives that would be needed by the Reformulated Gasoline Project. Since no sulfur removal occurs in these units, there is no potential for selenium removal. Since there would be no additional crude throughput and no additional sulfur removal, there is no potential for the Reformulated Gasoline Project to increase selenium loading in refinery wastewater beyond the normal fluctuations in loading currently experienced by the refinery. I s Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR, 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-177 RESPONSE AB2-32 Selenium Hydrology* The commentor.asserts that the EIR assumes that Unocal is excused from meeting its final permit limit on the discharge of selenium. The commentor notes that a federal court decision made after the publication of the EIR ruled that the final permit limit is still in effect and that Unocal's current discharges are in excess of that limit. The commentor states that the EIR reports Unocal as having exceeded its interim limit of 4.4 lbs/day three times in November 1991. The commentor believes that the project would increase its discharge of selenium and could exacerbate the violations of the NPDES permit limits for the San Francisco Refinery, constituting a significant impact. The commentor incorrectly states that the EIR assumed that Unocal is exempt from meeting its final limit. The EIR clearly states in the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 6-33: "As currently configured, Unocal cannot meet the final limit of 0.85 lb/day, which will become effective on July 31, 1998." At the time of publication of the EIR, the interim limit of 5.6 Ib/day was the permissible limit. The federal court decision that ruled in favor of the final permit limit of 0.85 lb/day does not change the fact that the refinery cannot meet the 0.85 lb/day limit and does not alter the meaning, analysis and conclusions of the EIR. The commentor inadvertently misinterpreted the second sentence in the second paragraph on page 6-33 to mean that the interim limit is 4.4 lb/day. The following revision to this sentence is explanatory only, and does not change the conclusions of the EIR: "Unocal's interim limit was exceeded three times in November, 1991. Since then,Unocal has . been meeting the intefifn lifnit hi ntain6d'an annual rolling average of 4.4 Ib/day 4. rrieetingits Interimlimit 6f5 6 lblday. As currently configured, Unocal cannot meet the final limit of 0.85 lb/day, which will become effective on July 31, 1998." As discussed under RESPONSES AB2-2, AB2-5, and AB2-31, the Reformulated Gasoline Project would not cause an increase in the discharge of selenium. Thus, the project would not exacerbate existing conditions. Nothing in the EIR implies that the County believes that Unocal is or should be excused from meeting its final limit. The EIR is silent on this issue. Since the proposed project would not increase the discharge of selenium, Unocal's current difficulty in meeting the selenium Indicates change to the text of the Draft EIR. All changes to each chapter are presented in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR. Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Projeer Administrative Final EIR ' 2. Comments and Responses Page 2-178 discharge standard is not a factor in the analysis of significant impacts. The County disagrees with the commentor that the EIR failed to identify a significant impact. RESPONSE AB2-33 Selenium Hydrology The commentor asserts that the project might increase selenium discharges by increasing hydrotreating and hydrocracking to meet the new sulfur limit on gasoline,but then acknowledges that Unocal meets the CARB Phase II sulfur limit. The commentor further opines that this is the main_ reason Unocal discharges more selenium per barrel of oil refined than any other Bay Area refiner. Comment noted. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, no further discussion or analysis is required. RESPONSE AB2-34 Selenium Hydrology The commentor recommends that Unocal comply with the selenium discharge permit. limit by reducing current desulfurization of gasoline and other blendstocks until acceptable wastewater treatment methods are on-line, and then subsequently increase the desulfurization of blendstocks to comply with CARB Phase II reformulated gasoline requirements. IChe commentor asserts that by taking this course of action to comply with the final selenium limit, the project impact would be significant because of the increase in selenium produced when desulfurization is reactivated. Discontinuing desulfurization processes to reduce selenium discharged into the wastewater is not proposed as part of the project. This suggestion is outside the evaluation of this EIR,which focuses on the proposed project only and does not include other refinery activities outside of the Reformulated Gasoline Project. As discussed in RESPONSES A)B2-2, AB2-5, and A132-31, the Reformulated Gasoline Project would not increase selenium discharges. RESPONSE AB2-35 Selenium Hydrology The commentor asserts that selenium discharges due to the project would increase, would be significant, and should be mitigated. The County disagrees with the commentor that the proposed project would increase the discharge of selenium. Please refer to RESPONSES RCA-5, AB2-31, and AB2-32. i Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Commenu and Responses Page 2-179 RESPONSE AB2-36 Hazardous Waste Risk of Upset The commentor states that the Draft EIR should be revised to separately identify individual hazardous wastes and to discuss and evaluate the impact handling and transporting these wastes will have on workers and the public. As discussed on page 11-16 and shown on Table 11-3 of the Draft EIR, hazardous wastes associated with this project include sludges, oily trash, sandblast grit, and catalyst. Only the catalyst waste is expected to increase substantially (up to twenty-five percent). Catalyst wastes are typically removed by outside contractors,who are specially trained and equipped to deal with the potential associated hazards. Further, the catalyst will be recycled off-site. The other hazardous wastes are only anticipated to increase by a maximum of one percent. These wastes are not considered to result in a significant impact since they are already being handled at the refinery by appropriately trained personnel. Further, the majority of these wastes (catalyst) will be generated at set intervals(during shutdown operations)such that transportation and disposal activities can be appropriately planned. Even if the generation, transportation, and disposal of these wastes were found to result in a significant impact, the mitigation measures that would be proposed include controls and practices that are already in place. These include training, complying with regulatory waste minimization requirements, adhering to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requirements, and follow OSHA-mandated practices. RESPONSE AB2-37 Worker Safety Public Health" The commentor asserts that the EIR did not evaluate impacts on refinery workers, which violates CEQA and deprives them of potential mitigation measures "from which they could uniquely benefit." The County disagrees that the Draft EIR violates CEQA or denies workers opportunities for mitigation measures necessary to protect their safety. In Comments AB2-37 through AB2-40, the commentor puts forth the following logic: 1. The project could cause potential impacts to workers; 2. CEQA requires analysis of on-site environmental impacts; Indicates change to the text of the Draft EIR. All changes to each chapter are presented in Chapter 3 of this Ficial EIR. i Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR ' Z Comments and Responses Page 2480 3. People, including on-site workers, are equally protected under CEQA, therefore impacts to workers are covered by CEQA; 4. Existence of other regulatory programs to protect workers does not exempt worker safety from CEQA purview; and 5. Therefore the EIR should have evaluated impacts to on-site workers. First, the County agrees with the commentor that the project could cause potential impacts to workers on-site. The Draft EIR contains many acknowledgements that the refinery, including the proposed project, is an inherently hazardous workplace. The Draft EIR discusses the safety design standards that the project will incorporate to reduce the frequency and severity of accidents (Draft EIR, page I1-11). It discusses the Process Safety Management System (Draft EIR, pages 11-2 through 11-10; page I1-13), describing facility inspection systems, employee training, and Unocal's Management of Change procedures, subject to OSHA review. The Draft EIR also describes the County's Risk Management Prevention Program, a future opportunity for additional public review of the project's risks to public safety. The Draft EIR fully discloses all changes in risks—types and quantities of hazardous materials, changes in equipment,equipment locations, impacts on emergency response and preparedness, and the most likely accidents that would endanger people,both on- and off-site. Workers at the Unocal Refinery have extensive information about potential changes in their work environment, as well as procedures available to them to take action in the future. These programs only exist for hazardous workplaces, particularly those handling hazardous materials. Second, the Draft EIR presents an extensive analysis of on-site environmental impacts, including public health and safety impacts. The Draft EIR fully evaluates the: potential impacts on the public health and safety that could be known at the permitting stage of this project. As discussed in RESPONSE AB2-38, it evaluates potential impacts on the physical environment, both on-site and off-site, as well as public health and safety. The commentor notes that Unocal employees could be exposed to contaminated soils, contaminated groundwater, air toxics, and hazards due to on-site accidents. The EIR extensively describes these types of hazards that might be created by this project, which would apply to employees and nearby residents alike. Chapter 3 describes changes to existing operations and additions of new units and tanks (Draft EIR, pages 3-22 to 3-38). Chapter 5 discusses wtlbther geologic conditions might increase risks to people (Draft EIR, page 5-30 and forward). Chapter 6 describes the potential for groundwater and soil contamination and outlines controls(Draft i Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2.181 EIR,pages 6-44 to 645). Chapter 9,Public Health, describes the potential public health effects due to continuous exposure to toxic emissions, affecting employees and nearby residents alike. Chapter 10, Noise, describes changes in equipment that might cause increases in noise generation. Chapter . 11, Risk of Upset, describes the types of accidents that might be associated with the project and identifies and evaluates those most likely to cause significant health and safety impacts. Third, the commentor asserts that on-site workers are equally protected under CEQA and therefore impacts to workers are covered by CEQA The commentor's assertion is based on the commentor's interpretation of"environmental impact"as well as "public safety," not on any express authority cited to the County. The County assumes that workers should receive the same protection under CEQA as "the public," but this assumption does not imply the same level of analysis within an EIR, due to CEQA's prohibition of speculative analysis in EIRs. Risks to workers from accidental release, or, even from fugitive toxic emissions, are inherently different from risks to the general public. First, workers are knowledgeable regarding hazardous materials and willingly accept such risk in their employment. Workers are provided safety training in recognizing hazards present in the workplace and mitigative measures to be taken in the event of a hazardous materials release. Workers also have access to protective clothing and/or other safety means to protect themselves should a release occur. Finally, workers can control their exposure to risks on the job site through their own actions. Unocal will be required to comply with OSHA standards established to protect workers. A refinery is an inherently hazardous operation. No one may work in a refinery or spend time iii the field without the refinery fully disclosing the risks that . are present. The government uses compliance with OSHA to establish minimum safety thresholds of acceptable risks. Worker safety could not be adequately modeled now, at the permitting stage of this refinery project. A meaningful analysis of worker exposure and safety for this type of workplace depends on detailed information not yet available, such as protective clothing, employee training, employee expertise, detailed construction, and detailed operating procedures. To present such an analysis at this phase would be speculative. To investigate individual workers' exposures to toxics in a hazardous workplace is quite complex, lengthy, and dependent on factors that cannot be known prior to project permitting. Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2. Comments and Responses Page 2.182 Fourth, the commentor asserts that the existence of regulations to ensure worker safety does not relieve the lead agency from its obligation to workers. The Draft Elft contains extensive analysis in areas where another agency has extensive regulatory control—air quality,public health, risk of upset, waste water discharge, etc. The absence of a separate analysis on individual worker safety in the Draft EIR reflects only the speculative nature of conducting this type of analysis at this time and has no bearing on the existence of other regulatory authority. Fifth,the commentor claims that the EIR should have evaluated health and safety impacts on on-site workers. Impact analysis could imply one of two levels. The analysis of overall worker safety was contained in the Draft EIR, although it was not labeled as such. In essence, the Draft EIR demonstrates that all the hazards being presented by the proposed project currently exist at the San Francisco Refinery. This project does not create significant new hazards beyond those already present on site. No new types of hazards are expected due to on-site contaminated soils (see Draft EIR, pages 3-43,6-7,6-8,6-34 through 37,6-44 and 6-45),hazardous waste(see Draft EIR, page 11- 16 and Table 11-3,page 11-19),hazardous materials(see Draft EIR,page 11-16 and Table 11-2,page 11-17), and types of operations (see Draft EIR Chapter 3, Project Description, pages 3-22 through 3-38), and Draft EIR Chapter 11, Risk of Upset (pages 11-37 through 11-57). Programs and procedures to protect employees are described in detail in the Draft:EIR (pages 11-2 through 11-13) and are expected to continue. Project design standards to reducethe frequency and severity of potential accidents are identified in the Draft EIR(page 11-11) and are part of the proposed project. However,worker safety impact analysis could imply an evaluation at a more detailed level, analyzing potential hazards to individual workers, such as those adjacent to the new hydrogen plant or those handling shipments of anhydrous ammonia. For the reasons stated above, it would be speculative at this time to ascertain what toxic exposures these employees would be subject to and what specific opportunities they would have to protect themselves. This type of analysis would be speculative and thus contrary to CEQA Guidelines. However, given the uncertainties about individual employee's exposures, the County cannot firmly conclude-that there would be no risk io individual employees or what specific measures would mitigate that risk Thus, we have amended the EIR to include a significant and unavoidable. impact on worker safety. The only feasible mitigation would be full compliance with OSHA requirements and the health and safety programs identified in the Draft EIR. Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and RzWnscs Page 2-183 Since compliance with these programs do not create a workplace that is inherently safe,we conclude that the impact would remain significant after mitigation and thus that the impact is significant and unavoidable. We amend page 9-23 by adding the following Impact 94 and its mitigation measure: :Pr'�Y�T'ivii-Yxx•:C:C!�;iC;4.::-1•iF:S}:{.}}:•:x:•rivY:n+,v+F3Ci4w;+r'.�Jnv +.LAWx)PY:vR:i:i;v:ri4.v:J:x:::M•.{;;x}+\v-wvnvvv:v�.;viiri•:;i;J:G:;•}:i4::!�:G}:!!-:•:L}:v:;JixiL4w:;;+xv:•:;xbi-::i-}:i;;;3ii c;a;<.va::i.+r.:t:;;tafi;.rx;:;:;;.:-.w��.{{.�{:a.,:,�.w..•�•',;;,.>i,.wx.....=.a+w�vv ..... ............. ¢..,w.,•.�.•.:-:.:-.;,<;c w,::;•:}:� a:<oi:.:;;.,.:t•>}}}:;:t:.:::.. nv;:n• .v 1 , 4 lx,..:w::.v.:vr.•mn .:,•.v{ur�.v.w•4. :v:Y^,wvxw.w.w•:; ,.{r^'C:••:ew:.•mrir:.x w.v.?C}:nv:..ry.x.•rx LG`i.;i{Y�`{i-04Z,4�rYiJWu'A'+Cv'r':;x;4:�'•Y}:4}Y}Y+vvx;•:vi::rx.:v%•,.rvv}w,w\:9nWnv..:x...�`�.•.`•e.•:..v:.,.,..:.,:•x:::.:•::x..v�..::�-i.•}h}:.}}:.;,,::;.Y;}::}::4}}:;.}::iv}:::•:tiix.:};:x:;•.v:::;.:::v}';;.}}iv}i: 4 u :wa►rkEr:aaie:' =axe<`ConsiTer "3i::: rid< iav dle ': F:•:ivnv".'•.. rnvvwx:.•.,L;-Yiw:.ve:xix;:..;yYYi}rii;;JxriS. ..-.:.•.:..•.-...•.:ri•Yi{.iv.:.:...•:'•ivYY.W.�S.}:ri :isB ��TR�>denons#r�t....:....�t'"�1: ........................................ .. . 'wnw}::s.,.:x,,..,.Y.�;.,; w };a::x.;r}x•}:}: ,........,a,ycuw;.;:;,v>x`.ar.... ,:�.�. -. z3..cfh '.:i:xo:.-}:;o} .s a a;v:;;;; ha >b nda~hosetilrea :<: esenE"OaSiEe "Pro'::'emsaatl`''rocedures` as::.escn.;;:::-. Yi :...:e Md.. }sr .............,.,.:::.,.r.�......:..,,,<.:.,Y..P-;'::;�;k:::n�>:::r:Y:�::..::.}:.}:.:::.... 11I lQprotect p° sryexpecdto conccnvyh. 1i•:•:tiIXJx nu•..vxnv...ni w.....n; .:..v..... ...v :v:.i,}}++:.}v:e,:n:�:: 'C::.:y:v: ::.}.:::::.::�..:...:::..:.::ti:::::::i::::�::::.:::� ::.:i-.::.�.::.:'.�..:::...-.}'.;:.i..::qii•:.:;�+.r.:.: :.:.....i'.::::. .vi;::.:.::yp'^.:.i:i... i.::.:�.i'<.a.:::::::.::.,..::p.:; c�vy�r.►:.�f,;ih�te:�e acid this pro .:ed;pto�ect et,�at���taher :t�y_rjsky work�env�rortm�n} ,<..::::,v.:::..tY::::::::::::::::�.:�::}:::::::::�;:::........:.:....... .....lbw;.::::...::.:.......v::::.:..:..:..:}::;:...:..,,.....:.�::.:�.,.}:.w............,..:..,.............,..............,....:...:::... rfintrtg dperfron.i I€wauTc be speculative icr assess titre✓ afetyiidtvtdual�vptkers hthis :.mE:; n:�he} ::.p eG. .; r�ar;to;: ;ermittln .,:.d..e;a�leddes ':'aid;zev..ts�d`o•�."'.�.atn .; :z}:,::,;:,::ores I�tcx�tp,oratttig hew anti motitfied utitt� ':Phos-due [o these uticertamhes we Conclude hat indiv3ual`warlcesiriaY:face si`riifii~ant and�uiiavgida6Ie iin"Ty�{�'y�ts on workers fe{'.Y• - }Vlitigafiaa`iVIeasure 9�iY>�flmply with Cal=0SI3A t�l�ocai sixall'rnmply Frith the appi�cab7e requ�renients of Cal OSIiA o pec health and aaiet*. due to the fufure ncertainties about:;1§M to ind3v�dual empl u -MM".we esn�sot tiemonsirale that these measures will seduce the risks to uless than sigaiGcant Ieve1 ltlius�the impact 3s consideredsgnificant and unavoidable after mitigation; The Occupational Health and Safety Administration requirements are designed to ensure the health and safety of workers. These requirements are implemented in California through the California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Cal-OSHA). After the project is operating, OSHA regulations come into play. OSHA issues no permits. It publishes detailed workplace safety standards, reporting requirements, and record-keeping requirements. It enforces these requirements by inspecting operating facilities and evaluating trends in employee safety. Risks to employees from Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR a 2 Comments and Response Page 2-184 the same type of equipment can vary widely from workplace to workplace,depending on the detailed operating conditions and safety practices in each workplace. Thus OSHA protects employees by regulating the detailed operating working conditions and by ensuring that workplaces meet certain minimum requirements. Although the Draft EIR has been revised to include an impact and mitigation measure focused on employee safety, we disagree with the commentor's conclusion that the EIR should analyze and propose mitigation for impact to on-site workers. The EIR cannot either engage in speculative analysis or require the applicant to generate detailed information that can only be provided at a much later stage in the project's development. While we can conclude: that the overall, refinery-wide impacts an worker safety are less than significant, we cannot at this time resolve the uncertainties surrounding potential impacts on individual employees. RESPONSE AB2-38 Site Environmental Resources Vegetation/Wildlife The commentor asserts that the Draft EIR should evaluate the potential project impacts to on-site environmental resources. As defined on page 7-1 of the Draft EIR, the project site includes any parcels or equipment proposed for modification. The project site is entirely within the developed (active) portion of the existing San Francisco Refinery. The developed portion of the refinery does not contain any environmental resources. Impacts to the on-site physical environment are well- documented throughout the Draft EIR. Thus, no further discussion on impacts to on-site environmental resources is warranted in the EIR. In addition, the commentor interprets CEQA to require an analysis of impacts to people both on-site and off-site (see RESPONSE AB2-37 above). RESPONSE AB2-39 Worker Safety Public Health The commentor claims that the Draft EIR should consider the increased cancer risk to on-site workers as well as off-site workers. The Draft EIR did not exclude workers from the evaluation of public health risks due to project emissions. However, the Draft EIR did not evaluate worker risk based on expected industrial exposure, since such analysis would be; speculative at this point in the I Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses - Page 2-185 project(see RESPONSE AB2-37 above). We agree with the commentor's conclusion that the mere presence of regulatory controls does not place the subject matter outside of CEQA's purview. The existence of OSHA regulations to protect worker safety does not place it outside the purview of CEQA,any more than the existing of water quality regulations would place impacts on water quality outside of CEQA's purview. We also agree with the commentor that 'CEQA protects workers just as it protects all other groups of people and environmental resources.' CEQA protects people by evaluating broadly defined impacts on the general population,but does not require EIRs to engage in speculative analysis. In the Draft EIR, employees have thus been treated as has the general population. The County concludes that the Draft EIR has fulfilled its CEQA obligation to workers by providing extensive, useful information about the proposed projects concerning its public health and safety impacts. This information can be used by both employees and OSHA to guide their future efforts at the Unocal San Francisco Refinery. RESPONSE AB240 Worker Safety Public Health The commentor suggests that if the impacts to on-site workers were considered that some conclusions of the Draft EIR would likely change. This comment summarizes the commentor's points in RESPONSES AB2-37 through AB2-39, responded to above. The EIR found no evidence of a change in the risk environment being experienced by refinery workers at the Unocal San Francisco Refinery. No new chemicals are being introduced. No new operations are being proposed. No new toxic air'emissions are projected. The EIR has fully evaluated the nature of public health and safety risks being created by the proposed project and their general impacts on those in and around the project site. To properly evaluate the risks to individual equipment operators and to design mitigation measures that would genuinely protect them would require extensive detailed information that is not available at this point in the project. Risk analysis of individuals would have been based on speculative information at best. Lacking this information, the EIR as revised simply*concludes, without further evaluation, that employees would face a significant impact. The only conceivable mitigation measure at this point in the project's development is compliance with Cal-OSHA health and safety standards. This action is already required. Thus this approach would not further the public knowledge of the project nor provide protective mechanisms not already available. As a result, we disagree with the commentor that the EIR inadequately evaluated health and safety risk and should be recirculated. i _i Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR v 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-186 RESPONSE AB241 Spill Consequence Vegetation/Wildlife The commentor indicated that, although the likelihood of a marine vessel grounding or collision that results in a major spill may be small, the consequences could be catastrophic. Moreover,. the commenter questions the Draft EIR analysis' conclusion that spilled material would be diluted and degraded, indicating that this is contrary to experience "as evidenced by the substantial damage from the Exxon Valdez spill." The Exxon Valdez spill involved crude oil; the 12 marine vessels.calling at Unocal's terminal in support of the Reformulated Gasoline Project would be transporting unfinished gasoline stocks (alkylate blend; isopropane/reformate blend). These materials differ markedly from crude oil in their chemistries, volatilities, solubilities, smothering potentials, environmental persistences, fates and mobilities, and toxicities of non-volatile fractions. As indicated in the!Draft EIR, the environmental characteristics of the blend stocks promote rapid evaporation of the. more toxic fractions, and fast degradation and mixing of the water-soluble fractions of the blends, resulting in rapid reduction in the toxic components and dilution of the spilled concentrations. The potential for a major spill of these blend stocks to be "devastating," to trigger an "environmental Armageddon," and to result in consequences that could be "catastrophic" (all indicated in the comment), is offset by the rapid response capability created and maintained in the Bay Area by industry. In contrast to the remoteness of Prince William Sound, where response time to the Exxon Valdez spill was in part determined by long marine distances from response capabilities, spills in the Bay Area can be quickly reached. Clean Bay, an oil spill cooperative, maintains an extensive inventory of response equipment, which is located throughout the Bay. The Clean Bay Oil Spill Contingency Plan lists the equipment available to promote rapid containment and clean-up of spills on the Bay: two large response vessels, nine workboats, 28 skimmers, an oil storage barge, and more than 45,000 feet of boom. Consequently, on the remote chance that a major spill would occur involving a vessel servicing the Reformulated Gasoline Project (the probability of an accident involving 10% of a vessel's contents would be approximately 0.00036 accidents per year), this containment and clean-up response capacity would be triggered. For these reasons, the County disagrees with the commentor that the consequences of an accident should be considered a significant impact. i Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-187 RESPONSE AB2A2 Ship Accidents Cumulative Impacts The commentor indicates that the Draft EIR should be revised to evaluate cumulative water quality, aquatic life impacts, and risk of upset impacts resulting from ship accidents; the commentor believes these impacts would be significant. As discussed in RESPONSE AB241, the cumulative increase in the I&elihood of an accident that would result in a sizeable spill as a result of increased vessel calls at Unocal's marine terminal would be extremely low. As discussed in RESPONSE BCDC-2, other methods of evaluating the probability to evaluate vessel traffic accidents could have been used. For instance, using the spill probability methodology utilized in the March 1994 Draft EIR for a New Lease for Unocal's San Francisco Refinery(SCH. No.91043082),the estimated increased probability of spills from the Unocal marine terminal for an additional 24 vessel movements is 0.0062(probability of 0.9632 for 139 vessel movements versus 0.9569 for 163 vessel movements). Although it is recognized that the probability of an accident increases more than linearly if the area becomes overly congested, such over-congestion is unlikely to occur due to proposed projects using this waterway. As stated in the Draft EIR on page 12-66: The Vessel Traffic Service of the U.S. Coast Guard has indicated that, even with the projected increase in background vessel transits in the Strait to the year 2000 the ability to regulate traffic flow through the strait will not be hampered. The vessel control systems employed by the Vessel Traffic Service have the capacity to accommodate the additional traffic without causing unacceptable congestion. For this reason, the additional project maritime traffic will not contribute to congestion in the Carquinez Strait.7' Additionally, as described in RESPONSE AB241, in the remote circumstance that an accident were to occur,the mobilization and response capability of Clean Bay would limit the overall scale,duration, and impact of a resulting spill. RESPONSE AB243 Recirculation CEQA The commentor portrays the project as extremely large, complex, highly stressful to the environment and a major polluter in the Bay Area. This portion of comment AB243 is a personal opinion, and the commentor did not submit any evidence substantiating this opinion. The commentor further (1) interprets CEQA as requiring recirculation of an EIR that adds significant new information, (2) concludes that the EIR must add significant new information in order to comply with CEQA, and.(3) therefore the EIR should be recirculated. The statements concerning CEQA and grounds for Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Fina/EIR 2 Comments and Response Page 2-188 recirculation do not address the adequacy or completeness of the EIR. Thus, no further comment on those statements is warranted. The commentor concludes that the EIR is flawed and fails to provide technical support required by CEQA; this comment appears to reference the commentor's previous remarks in this letter. The commentor argues that recirculation is necessary because: • The Draft EIR includes summary conclusions and fails to provide sufficient technical support; • Revisions are necessary because of new information regarding impacts; • Significant impacts were omitted; and • Feasible mitigations were not included. We disagree with each of these points, as reflected in Responses to Comments above, and disagree with the conclusion that the EIR should be recirculated. Evaluation and response to the public comments has not introduced significant new information. One impact statement has been added (Impact 9-4), but it is based on information already presented in the Draft EIR. This impact statement does conclude that the impact is significant and unavoidable, but it employs no new information or analysis to reach that conclusion. Two air quality mitigation measures have been added, but they involve components of the project that were fully discussed in the Draft EIR (i.e., the increased duct firing, volatile organic compound offsets). Other, revisions of the Draft EIR and new information contained in these responses to comments were explanatory only and do not affect the analysis or conclusions in the Draft.EIR. Throughout this comment letter,,the commentor states repeatedly that the EIR overlooked impacts, underestimated impact, or failed to identify additional feasible mitigation measures. After careful review and response to these comments, we find no underestimated impacts and only two new mitigation measures. Thus we disagree that these Responses to Comments contains significant new information that warrants recirculation. Therefore, consistent with CEQA, the public has had ample opportunity to review the analysis and its conclusions. We conclude that the EIR is not flawed and recirculation is not warranted. Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project Administrative Final EIR 2 Comments and Responses Page 2-189 1. Contra Costa County,Draft Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan,September 1992,pp. 11-3/8. 2. Correspondence from Dale Iverson, Unocal, August 30, 1994. Also, correspondence from Warren Smith, Unocal, to BAAQMD, September 8, 1994. 3. Correspondence from Dr.Eliana Makhlout,Montgomery Watson,to Mr.Warren Smith,Unocal, September 9, 1994. 4. Ibid. S. Ibid. Also, conversation with Dr.Eliana Makhlout, Montgomery Watson, and Debra Sanderson, EIP Associates, September 16, 1994. 6. U.S. Coast Guard,Port Needs Study, Volume II Part 2, August 1991. 7. Source: U.S. Coast Guard,Port Needs Study, Volume H Part 2, August 1991. I