HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10011996 - D11 i D . 11
Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
`,' Costa
01
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON " ,4 COUnty
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
o
sra'couK'�
DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1996
SUBJECT: APPEAL BY MR. LYNN CHERRY, MR. JAY GUNKELMAN, MS. JULIA MAY AND MR.
ANDY MECHLING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR' S DECISION REGARDING UNOCAL'S COMPLIANCE WITH LAND
USE PERMIT CONDITION 75.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Deny this appeal and uphold the Planning Commission' s decision
to uphold the Zoning Administrator' s decision concerning
Unocal' s compliance with Condition of Approval 75 (Land Use
Permit 2038-93) .
B. Adopt Board Resolution #17-1996 attached as Exhibit A as a
basis of the Board' s action.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Introduction:
On July 15, 1996, the Zoning Administrator made a decision
concerning Unocal' s compliance with Condition of Approval 75 of its
Land Use Permit . This decision (1) required prompt installation
and operation of two FTIR monitors, (2) extended the deadline for
submitting the Final Design of the Fenceline Monitoring Program
from June, 1996 to November 22, 1996, and (3) outlined a detailed
compliance schedule by which to monitor Unocal' s compliance
efforts .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMME ON O ARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON October APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER x
This is the time noticed for hearing on the above matter . Dennis Barry ,
Community Development Department , 'advised of a request from both. parties to
continue the matter , and on recommendation of Supervisor Rogers , the hearing on
the above matter is CONTINUED to October 15 , 1996 , at 4 P.M.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT .2- 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:Debbie Sanderson 335-1208
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED October 1 , 1996
cc: Unocal PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Ms. Julia May THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Public Works-Mitch Avalon AND UN ADMI TRATOR
BY 4A , DEPUTY
DS/df _
bo3 :2038-93 .bo �
Page Two
On July 25, the four appellants listed above appealed this decision
by the Zoning Administrator. On August 27, 1996, the Planning
Commission conducted a hearing on this appeal, accepted public
testimony, and unanimously denied this appeal . (Attachment C)
On September 5, 1996, the same four appellants appealed this action
by the Planning Commission. This appeal letter (Attachment B)
includes the July 25, 1996 appeal letter.
At issue is Unocal' s compliance with Condition of Approval 75 of
its Land Use Permit. Condition 75 requires Unocal to submit a
final design of an air pollution monitoring system that is
"mutually agreeable'.' to the signatories of the Good Neighbor
Agreement. The appellants take issue with the Zoning
Administrator' s decision to extend Unocal' s deadline for this
submittal from June, 1993 to November 22, 1996.
The four appellants are community signatories of the Unocal Good
Neighbor Agreement and are members of the Fenceline Monitor Working
Group (i .e. , the Working Group) .
This report summarizes actions and issues since the August 27, 1996
Planning Commission Appeal Hearing. Attachment C presents the
Staff Report for that hearing.
B. Actions Since the August 27, 1996 Planning Commission Hearing
By August 30, 1996, Unocal' s purchased FTIR system was operating on
both the northern and southern fence lines. (Attachment D) . Unocal
and the Working Group met on September 3 and September 11 .
Another meeting is scheduled for September 26th (Attachments D &
E) .
C. Nature of the Appeal :
The grounds for this appeal are stated in the appellants' September
5, 1996 letter (3 new issues) and the attached July 25, 1996 appeal
letter (4 issues) . The four issues from the July 25, 1996 appeal
letter, listed below, are discussed in Attachment C:
1 . Unocal is out of compliance
2 . The Zoning Administrator' s decision failed to bring Unocal
into compliance and focused instead on developing a temporary
system.
3 . The County has the authority and duty to bring Unocal into
compliance.
4 . The County can bring Unocal into compliance by adopting a
schedule and monitoring guidelines developed by the
appellants .
Three additional issues, from the September 5, 1996 letter, are
discussed below:
Point 1 : The deadline will delay final installation
Statement of Appeal :
"The Planning Commission denied our appeal, apparently based on a
feeling that there is currently a deadline put in place by the
Zoning Administrator of November 22 for Unocal to submit a plan to
the commission and come back into compliance. However, this
deadline will delay the final installation greatly past the
deadlines of the Land Use Permit . "
' Page Three
Staff Response
The Zoning Administrator' s decision did extend Unocal ' s deadline
for submitting the final design. Several Planning Commission
members cited this deadline when explaining their decision to deny
the appeal . However, the schedule for final installation is
determined by many factors, not just the final design submittal
date. A final design that is "mutually agreeable" to all parties
is much less subject to installation delays than one imposed
unilaterally on one party or the other. Unocal has already agreed
to install FTIR monitors as part of the final design; thus, at
least a portion of the final system is already installed. Since
the Zoning Administrator' s decision has insured that two FTIR
monitors are operating while discussions continue, staff considers
the potential cost of delay in final installation to be less than
the potential benefits resulting from Unocal and the appellants
reaching agreement on the final design.
Point 2 : [The decision] does not provide a mechanism for getting
over the disagreement .
Statement of Appeal
" . . . and does not provide a mechanism for getting over the
disagreement between Unocal and community members which has been a
major problem or months now. "
Staff Response:
The Zoning Administrator' s decision did not instruct either party
how to resolve their differences, but created a greater incentive
to negotiate. Both Unocal and one of the appellants have reported
that progress is being made in negotiating a final design, although
some critical issue are still outstanding. It is not necessary to
provide such a mechanism if both parties are highly motivated to
resolve their differences themselves and progress is being made .
Point 3: There is no commitment from Unocal on a final design
Statement of Appeal
"The fact that Unocal now has FTIR monitors up and running, as
required by the Zoning Administrator for a temporary system, should
not obscure the fact that there is no commitment from Unocal on how
the instruments are to be used or integrated into a final design,
which chemicals are monitored, how data is shared, etc. In fact no
final design exists at all at this time. "
Staff Response:
As noted under Point 2 above, the parties report progress in
resolving their differences (See Attachment B, the Appeal Letter,
paragraph 2 and Attachment E, Unocal ' s September 6 letter) . At
the current rate of progress, the November 22, 1996 deadline
appears to be a reasonable schedule for submitting a final design.
Expecting the parties to work out among themselves the details of
this monitoring program is consistent with the Condition of
Approval 75 of Unocal' s Land Use Permit.
D. Conclusions
Staff finds that Unocal has continued to meet the milestones set
out by the Zoning Administrator and that progress is being made by
Unocal and the Working Group toward a "mutually agreeable" final
design of the fence line monitoring system. Staff also finds that
no new information has arisen to alter the decision of the Planning
Commission. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board of
Supervisor' s deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Zoning
Administrator concerning Unocal' s compliance with Land Use Permit
Condition 75.
ATTACHMENT"A"
RESOLUTION NO. 17-1996
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEAL
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -
APPEAL - Unocal Corporation, Applicant &Owner
Land Use Permit LP932028,
Rodeo area
WHEREAS, Unocal Corporation (owner) received a Land Use Permit
(#932038) on December 30, 1994, to build and operate its
reformulated fuels project at its refinery in Rodeo, California;
and
WHEREAS, Condition of Approval #5 of that Land Use Permit
required the Zoning Administrator to hold an annual public hearing
to review Unocal' s compliance with said permit; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held the required hearing on
May 16, 1996 and continued the hearing to June 17, 1996 and also to
July 15, 1996; and
WHEREAS, at the July 15, 1996 hearing the Zoning Administrator
made a decision which (1) required Unocal to promptly install and
operate two FTIR monitors, (2) extended Unocal' s deadline to submit
the Final Design of an air pollution monitoring system from June,
1996 to November 22, 1996, and (3) outlined a detailed compliance
schedule by which to monitor Unocal' s compliance efforts; and
WHEREAS, on July 25, 1996 Lynn Cherry, Jay Gunkelman, Julia
May and Andy Mechling appealed this decision to the County Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a
public hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission
on August 27, 1996, whereat all persons interested therein might
appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, on August 27, 1996, after the County Planning
Commission fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the
testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning
Commission DENIED the appeal and UPHELD the decision of the Zoning
Administrator; and
Page Two Resolution #17-1996
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this
recommendation are as follows:
1. The Zoning Administrator assured that the monitoring system
repeatedly required by community members at every hearing
(including CBE and other members of the Working Group) would
be operating by September 5, 1996, which is prior to the start
of school and two months prior to the November 1 deadline
contained in Condition of Approval 75.
2 . The Zoning Administrator assured that there would be no break
in monitoring coverage as the parties worked toward agreement.
Two FTIR monitors will provide community protection until
replaced by the final monitoring system.
3 . The Zoning Administrator's decision provided Unocal some
additional time to reach agreement with the Working Group,
although not as much time as Unocal requested.
4. The Zoning Administrator's decision created a detailed plan by
which to monitor Unocal 's efforts to reach agreement on a
final design.
5. The Final Design is subject to the review and approval of the
County Planning Commission, and will be ready for its review
at its December meeting.
WHEREAS, on September 5, 1996, an appeal was filed by Mr. Lynn
Cherry, Mr. Jay Gunkelman, Ms. Julia May, and Mr. Andy Mechling;
and
BE IT RESOLVED that the forgoing DENIAL was given by vote of
the County Planning Commission in a regular meeting Tuesday, August
27, 1996 as follows:
AYES: Commissioners - Clark, Gaddis, Guncheon,
Hanecak, Pavlinec, Terrell,
Wong
NOES: Commissioners - None
ABSENT: Commissioners - None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - N e
ATTEST:
vey • trntra
agdon, Secretary
f the nning Commission,
County of Costa, State of
DS/dfbo3 :203893 .res California
APPEAL
UNOCAL (APPLICANT& OWNER)
COUNTY FILE#LP932038
Appeal by Mr. Lynn Cherry,Mr. Jay Gunkelman, Ms. Julia May and Mr. Andy Mechling
of the Planning Commission's Decision to Uphold the Zoning Administrator's Decision
Regarding Unocal's Compliance with Land Use Permit Condition 75.
The project is located on approximately 25 acres of the 1,000 acre Unocal San Francisco
Refinery,
in the Rodeo area.
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
October 1, 1996 - 2:00 p.m.
This Page Left
Intentionally Blank
i
Contra
i
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS As Costa
� +nri!lde�t
County
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ces cJ
OSTq COLIK�
DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1996
SUBJECT: APPEAL BY MR. LYNN CHERRY, MR. JAY GUNKELMAN, MS. JULIA MAY AND MR.
ANDY MECHLING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION REGARDING UNOCAL'S COMPLIANCE WITH LAND
USE PERMIT CONDITION 75.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Deny this appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision
to uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision concerning
Unocal's compliance with Condition of Approval 75 (Land Use
Permit 2038-93) .
B. Adopt Board Resolution #17-1996 attached as Exhibit A as a
basis of the Board's action.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Introduction:
On July 15, 1996, the Zoning Administrator made a decision
concerning Unocal's compliance with Condition of Approval 75 of its
Land Use Permit. This decision (1) required prompt installation
and operation of two FTIR monitors, (2) extended the deadline for
submitting the Final Design of the Fenceline Monitoring Program
from June, 1996 to November 22, 1996, and (3) outlined a detailed
compliance schedule by which to monitor Unocal's compliance
efforts.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMME ON O ARD 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:Debbie Sanderson 335-1208
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED
cc: Unocal PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Ms. Julia May THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Public Works-Mitch Avalon AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
DS/df
bo3:2038-93.bo
Page Two
On July 25, the four appellants listed above appealed this decision
by the Zoning Administrator. On August 27, 1996, the Planning
Commission conducted a hearing on this appeal, accepted public
testimony, and unanimously denied this appeal. (Attachment C)
On September 5, 1996, the same four appellants appealed this action
by: the Planning Commission. This appeal letter (Attachment B)
includes the July 25, 1996 appeal letter.
At issue is Unocal's compliance with Condition of Approval 75 of
its Land Use Permit. Condition 75 requires Unocal to submit a
final design of an air pollution monitoring system that is
"mutually agreeable" to the signatories of the Good Neighbor
Agreement. The appellants take issue with the Zoning
Administrator's decision to extend Unocal's deadline for this
submittal from June, 1993 to November 22, 1996.
The four appellants are community signatories of the Unocal Good
Neighbor Agreement and are members of the Fenceline Monitor Working
Group (i.e., the Working Group) .
This report summarizes actions and issues since the August 27, 1996
Planning Commission Appeal Hearing. Attachment C presents the
Staff Report for that hearing.
B. Actions Since the August 27, 1996 Planning Commission Hearing
By August 30, 1996, Unocal's purchased FTIR system was operating on
both the northern and southern fence lines. (Attachment D) . Unocal
and the Working Group met on September 3 and September 11.
Another meeting is scheduled for September 26th (Attachments D &
E) .
C. Nature of the Appeal: -
The grounds for this appeal are stated in the appellants' September
5, 1996 letter (3 new issues) and the attached July 25, 1996 appeal
letter (4 issues) . The four issues from the July 25, 1996 appeal
letter, listed below, are discussed in Attachment C:
1. Unocal is out of compliance
2. The Zoning Administrator's decision failed to bring Unocal
into compliance and focused instead on developing a temporary
system.
3. The County has the authority and duty to bring Unocal into
compliance.
4. The County can bring Unocal into compliance by adopting a
schedule and monitoring guidelines developed by the
appellants.
Three additional issues, from the September 5, 1996 letter, are
discussed below:
Point 1: The deadline will delay final installation
Statement of Appeal:
"The Planning Commission denied our appeal, apparently based on a
feeling that there is currently a deadline put in place by the
Zoning Administrator of November 22 for Unocal to submit a plan to
the commission and come back into compliance. However, this
deadline will delay the final installation greatly past the
deadlines of the Land Use Permit "
Page Three
Staff Response
The Zoning Administrator's decision did extend Unocal's deadline
for submitting the final design. Several. Planning Commission
members cited thiseadline when explaining their decision to deny
the appeal. Howetr, the schedule for final installation is
determined by many :factors, not just the final design submittal
date. A final design that is "mutually agreeable" to all parties
is much less subject to installation delays than one imposed
unilaterally on one party or the other. Unocal has already agreed
to install FTIR monitors as part of the final design; thus, at
least a portion of the final system is already installed. Since
the Zoning Administrator's decision has insured that two FTIR
monitors are operating while discussions continue, staff considers
the potential cost of delay in final installation to be less than
the potential benefits resulting from Unocal and the appellants
reaching agreement on the final design.
Point 2: [The decision] does not provide a mechanism for getting
over the disagreement .
Statement of Appeal
". . .and does not provide a mechanism for getting over the
disagreement between Unocal and community members which has been a
major problem or months now."
Staff Response:
The Zoning Administrator's decision did not instruct either party
how to resolve their differences, but created a greater incentive
to negotiate. Both Unocal and one of the appellants have reported
that progress is being made in negotiating a final design, although
some critical issue are still outstanding. It is not necessary to
provide such a mechanism if both parties are highly motivated to
resolve their differences themselves and progress is being made.
Point 3: There is no commitment from Unocal on a final design
Statement of Appeal
"The fact that Unocal now has FTIR monitors up and running, as
required by the Zoning Administrator for a temporary system, should
not obscure the fact that there is no commitment from Unocal on how
the instruments are to be used or integrated into a final design,
which chemicals are monitored, how data is shared, etc. In fact no
final design exists at all at this time."
Staff Response:
As noted under Point 2 above, the parties report progress in
resolving their differences (See Attachment B, the Appeal Letter,
paragraph 2 and Attachment E, Unocal's September 6 letter) . At
the current rate of progress, the November 22, 1996 deadline
appears to be a reasonable schedule for submitting a final design.
Expecting the parties to work out among themselves the details of
this monitoring program is consistent with the Condition of
Approval 75 of Unocal's Land Use Permit.
D. Conclusions
Staff finds that Unocal has continued to meet the milestones set
out by the Zoning Administrator and that progress is being made by
Unocal and the Working Group toward a "mutually agreeable" final
design of the fence line monitoring system. Staff also finds that
no new information has arisen to alter the decision of the Planning
Commission. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board of
Supervisor's deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Zoning
Administrator concerning Unocal's compliance with Land Use Permit
Condition 75.
This Page Left
Intentionally Blank
ATTACHMENT "A"
RESOLUTION NO. 17-1996
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEAL
CONTRA- COSTA COUNTY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEAL - Unocal Corporation, Applicant & Owner
Land Use Permit LP932028,
Rodeo area
WHEREAS, Unocal Corporation (owner) received a Land Use Permit
(#932038) on December 30, . 1994, to build and operate its
reformulated fuels project at its refinery in Rodeo, California;
and
WHEREAS, Condition of Approval #5 of that Land Use Permit
required the Zoning Administrator to hold an annual public hearing
to review Unocal' s compliance with said permit; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held the required hearing on
May 16, 1996 and continued the hearing to June 17, 199-6 and also to
July 15, 1996; and
WHEREAS, at the July 15, 1996 hearing the Zoning Administrator
made a decision which (1) required Unocal to promptly install and
operate two FTIR monitors, (2) extended Unocal' s deadline to submit
the Final Design of an air pollution monitoring system from June,
1996 to November 22, 1996, and (3) outlined a detailed compliance
schedule by which to monitor Unocal' s compliance efforts; and
WHEREAS, on July 25, 1996 Lynn Cherry, Jay Gunkelman, Julia
May and Andy Mechling appealed this decision to the County Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a
public hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission
on August 27, 1996, whereat all persons interested therein might
appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, on August 27, 1996, after the County Planning
Commission fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the
testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning
Commission DENIED the appeal and UPHELD the decision of the Zoning
Administrator; and
Page Two Resolution #17-1996
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this
recommendation are as follows:
1. The Zoning Administrator assured that the monitoring system
repeatedly required by community members at every hearing
(including CBE and other members of the Working Group) would
be operating by September 5, 1996, which is prior to the start
of school and two months prior to the November 1 deadline
contained in Condition of Approval 75.
2. The Zoning Administrator assured that there would be no break
in monitoring coverage as the parties worked toward agreement.
Two FTIR monitors will provide community protection until
replaced by the final monitoring system.
3 . The Zoning Administrator's decision provided Unocal some
additional time to reach agreement with the Working Group,
although not as much time as Unocal requested.
4 . The Zoning Administrator's decision created a detailed plan by
which to monitor Unocal's efforts to reach agreement on a
final design.
5. The Final Design is subject to the review and approval- of the
County Planning Commission, and will be ready for its review
at its December meeting.
WHEREAS, on September 5, 1996, an appeal was filed by Mr. Lynn
Cherry, Mr. Jay Gunkelman, Ms. Julia May, and Mr. Andy Mechling;
and
BE IT RESOLVED that the forgoing DENIAL was given by vote of
the County Planning Commission in a regular meeting Tuesday, August
27, 1996 as follows:
AYES: Commissioners - Clark, Gaddis, Guncheon,
Hanecak, Pavlinec, Terrell,
Wong
NOES: Commissioners - None
ABSENT: Commissioners - None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - No
ATTEST:
av y E. gdon, Secretary
O
of the 16ra
ning Commission,
County of Costa, State of
DS/dfbo3 :203893 .res California
Unocal 7-15-96 ZA Hearing
Includes labels from: Mr. Lynn Cherry Jay Gunkelman
Unocall.lab & UnocalZA.lab 936 Elm Drive 422 Jackson Street
minus duplicates -j.luno7-Is.lab Rodeo, CA 94572 Crockett, CA 94525
Crockett- Carquinez Fire District Michael Ballivea Crockett Improvement Association
746 Loring Avenue Citizen's for a Better Environment PO Box 191
Crockett, CA 94525 500 Howard Street, Ste. 506 Crockett, CA 94525
San Francisco, CA 94165
Mr. Dennis Salmi
Rodeo Improvement Association Rodeo-Hercules Fire Prot. District Mr. Howard Adams
810 Hawthorn Drive 1680 Refugio Valley Rd. 720 Kendall Avenue
Rodeo, CA 94572 Hercules, CA 94547 Crockett, CA 94525
Steve Batchelder Janet Callaghan Melvin Boyd
1534 Rose Street 914 Sandy Cove Drive 1119 Dennis Court
Crockett, CA 94525 Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
Bud Burlison Mike Erickson Donald Zampa
342 Edwards Street 122 3rd Street 146 Old County Road
Crockett, CA 94525 Rodeo, Ca 94572 Crockett, CA 94525
Jerry Littleton Bill Ridle Virginia Bray
33 Standish Court 526 1st Street Community of Harbor Bay Isle-HOA
Crockett, CA 94525 Rodeo, CA 94572 3195 Mercartney Road
Alameda, CA 94502
John Huber Mike R. Erickson Virginia Bray
Inform/Dynamic.Networking 122 3rd Street 487 Clark Street
816 Main Street Rodeo, CA 94572 Crockett, CA 94525
Martinez, CA 94553
Kasha Kessler Janet Callaghan Andy Mechling
GNA School Comm. John Swett USD 902 St. Andrews Drive
565 Clark Street 341 B Street EI Sobrante, CA 94803
Crockett, CA 94525 Crockett, CA 94525
Julia May Nora Miller Jeffrey Hicks
Communities for a Better Environment 121 California Street 1116 Ceres Street
500 Howard Street, #506 Rodeo, CA 94572 Crockett, CA 94525
San Francisco, CA 94105
John Wolfe George Bendix Dennis Salmi
CC Taxpayers Assoc. 516 First Street 901 Elm Drive
820 Main Street Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
Martinez, CA 94553
Jeff Wilkes
Kathleen Imhoff Unocal Warner Carlisle
1824 Arlington Blvd. 1380 San Pablo Ave. 54 Bishop Road
EI Cerrito, CA 94530 Rodeo, CA 94572 Crockett,-CA 94525
Rod Butler Donald R. Brown Robert Peters
23 Baldwin Ave. OCAW 725 San Pablo Ave.
Crockett, CA 94525 PO Box 278 Rodeo, CA 94572
Rodeo, CA 94572
Cory Sylvester Janet Pygeorge Kent Peterson
136 Old County Road 512 Barnes Way 615 First Ave.
Crockett, CA 94525 Rodeo, CA 94572 Crockett, CA 94525
Tuseda Graggs SPEAKERS FROM THE JUNE 25TH Lloyd A. Tyler
West County Times PLANNING COMMISSION MTG 1851 San Pedro Ave.
PO Box 100 MINUS DUPLICATES Berkeley, CA 94707
Pinole, CA 94564
Ruel Robbins Lindsey Presson-Jennings Donald R. Brown
6201 Bernhard Ave. 6176 Bernhard Ave. 1801 Sonoma Blvd. #117
Richmond, CA 94805 Richmond, CA 94805 Vallejo, CA 94590
David R. Azcarrago Frank R. Bellecci
John Swett Unified School Dist. 2290 Diamond Blvd.
341 B Street Concord, CA 94520
Crockett, CA 94525
' 4nrx�A
357 199 005 357 203 001 357 203 00 ,� "'P
Manuel & Maria Silva Mary Roque & Maria Roque Mary R e & Maria Roque
. •233 Vallejo Ave 12900 Brookpark Rd 129 Brookpark Rd
Rodeo, CA 94572 Oakland, CA 94619 9a,'kland, CA 94619
357 203 002 357 203 003 357 203 004
Antonio & Isabel Leal Frank Potts Jr. Jose & Mary Rodriguez
1126 4th St Dorothy Potts Jr. 369 Suisun Ave
Rodeo, CA 94572 1120 4th St Rodeo, CA 94572
Rodeo', CA 94572
357 203 005 357 203 006 357 203 007
Louis & Merle Ketchum David & Kimberly Malone Kenneth Monger
345 Suisun Ave 1107 3rd St 1115 3rd St
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
357 203 008, 357 203 009 357 203 010
Orvella Fields Denise Frances Liddle 22ND & MARKET GROUP
1121 3rd St - Albert L Iacobitti 3223 Blume Dr
Rodeo, CA 94572 1133 3rd St Richmond, CA 94806
Rodeo, CA 94572
357 203 011 357 204 003 357 204 006
Jeanette Howell Daniel & Anne Reyes William Bromstead
Freida Talbot 1222 4th St Ambrosina Bromstead
320 Vallejo Ave Rodeo, CA 94572 1201 3rd St
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
357 204 006_--- 357 204 007 357 204 009
William B mstead Nora Lee Michelle Lesmeister ..
Ambros ' a Bromstead 1227 3rd St Michael & An Davis
120 rd St Rodeo, CA 94572 331 Vallejo Ave
eo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
357 204 010 357 204 012 357 204 012 :�-',f
James Calhoun Sr. Patrick McGoldrick Patrick McGoldrick
Leo Del Roberton Julia McGoldrick Jul a=' McGoldrick
333 Vallejo Ave 2671 Alice Way 7fi71 Alice Way
Rodeo, CA 94572 Pinole, CA 94564 Pinole, -CA 94564
357 204 013357 204 0� 357 204 015
Patrick McGoldrick Patrick`-McGoldrick Patrick oldrick
Julia McGoldrick Julia McGoldrick Julia.-McGoldrick
2671 _.Al.ice Way2.6"'1 Alice Way 2f>7� Alice Way
rrole, CA 94564 /Pinole, CA 94564 -Pinole, CA 94564
357 204 0357 204 017 357 204 018
Patrick Mcg ldrick Charles & Ida Tanksley Charles Rodriguez
Julia M�pGoldrick 321 Vallejo Ave Stephanie Saylor
2671A'lice Way Rodeo, CA 94572 1210 4th St
Pinole, CA 94564 Rodeo, CA 94572
357 225 001 357 225 002 357 225 003
Dorothy Bon Giovanni David & Marilyn Wilson Dariel McCall
513 Sonoma Ave 509 Sonoma Ave Susan York
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 505 Sonoma Ave
Rodeo, CA 94572
357 225 006 357 225 007 357 225 008
Ruby Elizabeth Park Adam & Debora Clark James Karnes Sr.
. '1317 5th St 1325 5th St 2324 Meadowlark St
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 San Pablo, CA 94806
357 225 009 357 225 010 357 225 011
Steve & Rachel Adams Arnold & Lupe Romero Laverne Hendrickson
1341 5th St 1349 5th St . Patricia Hendrickson
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 1352 6th St
Rodeo, CA 94572
357 225 012 357 225 013 357 225 014
Dorothy Costa Edmond & Mary Munnelly Linda Thomas
1350 6th St .1348 6th St 1340 6th St
Rodeo, CA 94572 'Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
357 225 015 357 225 016 357 225 017
Donald White Jr. Grace Arellano David Edmunds
Connie White Jr. 2606 E 20th St Josephine Edmunds
1639 Harrison St Oakland, CA 94601 961 Mitchell Way
Quincy, IL 62301 E1 Sobrante, CA 94803
357 225 018 357 225 019 357 225 020
Lloyd & Wilma Parker Louis & Alice Dolin Ronald Connelly
1308 6th St 501 Sonoma Ave Barbara Connelly
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 1309 5th St
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 191 001 358 191 002 358 191 003
EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILI Leslie Wilson Peter Fimbres
PO Box 24055 1091 California St Florence Fimbres
Oakland, CA 94623 Rodeo, CA 94572 1079 California St
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 191 004 358 191 005 358 191 006
Edgardo & Maria Tioseco Minda Pinlac James Sharpe Jr.
278 Coronado St 1055 California St Barbara Sharpe Jr.
Hercules, CA 94547 Rodeo, CA 94572 1043 California St
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 191 007 358 191 008 358 191 009
Alfredo Rogayan Premjit & Harjinder Rai Jose & Dinah Montoya
Mercedes Rogayan 1019 California St 1009 California St
1031 California St Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 191 010 358 191 011 358 191 012
Lemone & Bedell Brown Frank & Roberta Hensley Bobby & Jerry White
997 California St 985 California St 971 California St
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
358 191 013 358 191 014 358 191 015
Edward & Dolores Yuzon Daniel Sanders Melford & Sue Young
Ronald Yuzon Maria Huntington 178 Goldenrod Dr
959 California St 937 California St Hercules, CA 94547
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
358 212 013 358 212 014 358 212 015
On & Saroj Aggarwal Randle & S M Rosenberger Danny Mata
,34803 Warwick Ct 1109 Langlie Way 0. E S Ermiline
Fremont, CA 94555 Rodeo, CA 94572 1113 Myrna Way
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 212 016 358 212 017 358 212 018
Charlie Ugalde Martin & Jann Edmunds Charles & Donna Bennett
Maribeth Ugalde 1103 Myrna Way 1104 Viewpoint Blvd
1107 Myrna Way Rodeo, CA, 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 212 019 358 212 020 358 212 021
Gregory Roldan Ma-Chi & Shio-Duan Chen Kevin & Debbie Giang
Querobin & An Roldan 1112 Viewpoint Blvd 1116 Viewpoint Blvd
1108 Viewpoint Blvd "Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA . 94572
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 212 022 358 212 023 358 212 024
Joey & Marjorie Leong Loyce Dangerfield Paul Yim Pok Mar
1120 Viewpoint Blvd Addie Dangerfield Winnie Tam
Rodeo, CA 94572 1124 Viewpoint Blvd 839 Kirkham St
Rodeo, CA 94572 San Francisco, CA 94122
358 212 025 358 212 026 358 212 027
George & Aurora Diaz Harry & Stacey Marston Ronald Dorton
1132 Viewpoint Blvd 1136 Viewpoint Blvd 5407 Brookwood Ln
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 E1 Sobrante, CA 94803
358 212 028 358 212 029 358 212 030
James Lightfoot Kathryn Augustin JEONG INCHEOL & MIRYANG
Bernadette Lightfoot 1148 Viewpoint Blvd 1152 Viewpoint Blvd
1144 Viewpoint Blvd Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 212 031 358 212 032 358 212 033
Ryan & Gina Miyamoto Julian Lorenzo Veronica Lopez
1156 Viewpoint Blvd Marcelina Lorenzo Ruddy Gomez
Rodeo,'- CA: 94572 142 Amethyst Ct 1164 Viewpoint Blvd
Hercules, CA 94547 Rodeo, CA 9457.2
358 221 001 358 221 002 358 221 003
James Petrovits Jr. Warren & Sau Lee George & Mary Ling
Edna Petrovits . Jr. 1846 Pheasant Dr 1212 Donald Dr
1163 Viewpoint' Blvd Hercules, CA 94547 Rodeo, CA 94572
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 221 004 358 221 005 358 221 006
Hardeep Ahluwalia Yuk Choy & Joanne Chong Samuel & Julia Arnold
Gurjeet Ahluwalia 110 Coral Dr 1242 Donald Dr
1222 Donald Dr Orinda, CA 94563 Rodeo, CA 94572
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 221 007 358 221 008 358 221 009
Kenneth Charles Ceremony Yuk Choy Chong Angelo Puccioni
1252 Donald Dr 10 Coral Dr Madeline Puccioni
Rodeo, CA 94572 Orinda, CA .94563 1272 Donald Dr
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 070 001 058 202 001 358 202 002
Maxine Hagar Frank & Patricia Roberts Ronald Lichty
Woodrow Roche 1038 Viewpoint Blvd 1044 Viewpoint Blvd
3169 Teigland Rd Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
Lafayette, CA 94549
358 202 003 358 202 004 358 202 005
Eddie Kwok Chan Thomas & Lisa Gillespie Teresita Salvador
Lan Wong 1056 Viewpoint Blvd PO Box 6739
1.050 Viewpoint Blvd Rodeo, CA 94572 Tamuning, GU 96931
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 202 006 358 202 007 358 202 008
Elmer & Hazel Link Daniel Shaffer Nabil Abdullah
David Link Jennifer Steneberg Layla George
PO Box 363 1074 Viewpoint Blvd 1080 Viewpoint Blvd
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
358 202 009 358 202 010 358 202 011
Glen Schuetz Eddie & Cora Neal Joselito Ramelb
1102 Myrna Way 1108 Myrna Way Kathleen Ramelb
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 1114 Myrna Way
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 202 012 358 202 013 358 202 014
Leon & Benjamina Sanchez Joseph & Fan Au Charles & Teresa Hammer
1075 Langlie Way 3700 Hidden Springs Ct 1065 Langlie Way
Rodeo, CA 94572 E1 Sobrante, CA 94803 Rodeo, CA 94572
358 202 015 358 202 016 358 202 017
Alfredo Mendaros Faff & Dorothy Freitas Onnie & Wanilla Sanders
Georgia Mendaros 1051 Langlie Way 1047 Langlie Way
1057 Langlie Way Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 212 001 358 212 002 358 212 003
Jose & Sonia Rodriguez Thomas & Carole Tyminski Danny J K Domingo
1161 Langlie Way 1157 Langlie Way 788 Rose Dr
Rodeo, CA _ 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 Benicia, CA 94510
358 212 004 358 212 005 358 212 006
Wayne & Sally Lew Steven & Cecelia Barker Swee Sein & Trixie Tan
1149 Langlie Way 1145 Langlie Way 813 Skyline Dr
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 Daly City, CA 94015
358 212 007 358 212 008 358 212 009
Datar & Jasminder Rai Orlando Aguilar John & Maryann Killmer
Gurvinder Rai Eleanor Aguilar 1129 Langlie Way
1137 Langlie Way 127 Locust Ct Rodeo, CA 94572
Rodeo, CA 94572 Hercules, CA 94547
358 212 010 358 212 011 358 212 012
Jose & Elinor Gerbacio Wilfredo & -Joyce Balzomo Dean & Marueen Marella
1125 Langlie Way 1121 Langlie Way 1117 Langlie Way
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
' 358 221 01.0 358 221 011 358 222 001
Tony M L & Connie Szeto Tulio Gallegos Sr. Angelita Paligutan
753 Big Bend Dr Josefina Gallegos Sr. 1252 Stirling Dr
Pacifica, CA 94044 1292 Do_nald .Dr Rodeo, CA 94572
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 222 002 358 222 003 358 223 001
Mark Okazaki Steven Theresa Johnson Grover Harris
1256 Stirling Dr 1260 Stirling Dr Joan Locke
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 4635 Elmwood Rd
E1 Sobrante, CA 94803
Alan Rasmussen Eddy Wing-Foo & Mary Gee Birsurinder Brar
Patricia Rasmussen 1271 Donald Dr 1253 Donald Dr
1279 Donald Dr Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 223 005 358 223 006 358 223 007
.. Mila Zamora Harold & Rita Williams George Torres
1247 Donald Dr 1241 Donald Dr 1231 Donald Dr
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
358 223 008 358 223 009 358 223 010
Romeo Aberin Bock & Betty Lim Cheng Hsiang & Celia Wu
1221 Donald Dr 1215 Donald Dr 1490 31st Ave
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 San Francisco, CA 94122
358 223 011 358 223 012 358 223013
Kuo-Tai Huang John Lewis Robert & Joycee Hodge
Yung-Chia Huang 2811 E Main St 1159 Viewpoint Blvd ..-
40386
lvd .-40386 Loro P1 Humboldt, TN 38343 Rodeo, CA 94572
Fremont, CA 94539
358 223 014 358 223 015 358 223 016
John & Barbara Perez Leon & Gloria Catalan Enrica Gregorio
John Francis Perez 1151 Viewpoint Blvd 1147 Viewpoint Blvd
1155 Viewpoint Blvd Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
Rodeo, CA--- 94572
358 280 001
VIEW PARK HOMEOWNERS ASS
1776 Ygnacio Valley Rd
f216
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Cristino Fermin 358 201 009 358 201 010
Leonidas Fermin Uday Maharaj. , Andrew Lemons Jr.
$ldg 877• #`Apt 528 Sairendhri Maharaj Easie Lemons Jr.
Governors Is New Yor, NY 1053 Viewpoint Blvd 1049 Viewpoint Blvd
10004 Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
358 201 011 358 201 012
Marshall Walker III Eli & Josefina Cereca
PO Box 423 PO Box 664
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
358 191 016 358 191 017 358 191 018
Gregorio Alcantara Charles & Roxanna Sager Michael & Judith O'Hara
Ester Alcantara •-9.07 -Calif ornia St 3440 Stewarton Dr
915 California St Rodeo, CA 94572 E1 Sobrante, CA 94803
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 191 019 358 191 020 358 191 021
Barbara Ann Jacko Louis & Susan Bain Rosa & Virginia Dela
914 Springwood Ct 928 Springwood Ct 942 Springwood Ct
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
358 191 022 358 191 023 358 191 024
John Pendleton Thomas Angella Michael & Wendy Adams
Patricia Pendleton 970 Springwood Ct PO Box 394
956 Springwood Ct Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 191 025 358 191 026 358 191 027
Robert & Leigh Apodaca Margaret Padilla Mark & Lesley Miller
998 Springwood Ct 1012 Springwood Ct 1026 Springwood Ct
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
358 191 028 358 191 029 358 191 030
F Alan & Deana Sousa Gang Sun & Angel Yee Michael & Sherry LaMuth
1031 Springwood Ct 1017 Springwood Ct 1003 Springwood Ct
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
358 191 031 358 191 032 358 191 033
John & Maria Fonseca Joseph Victor Muzzine Charles & Patricia Green
843 Laurel Ct James August Muzzini 961 Springwood Ct
Rodeo, CA 94572 41 Pennington Ct Rodeo, CA 94572
Crockett, CA 94525
358 191 034 358 191 035 358 191 036
Barbara Johnson Kevin & Stephanie Kierce Gilbert Bernhard Jr.
Adrienne Johnson 933 Springwood Ct 919 Springwood Ct
947 Springwood Ct Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 191 037 358 192 001 358 201 001
Grace Tung VIEW PARK HOMEOWNERS ASS Inmaculada Estrella
905 Springwood Ct 3000 Clayton Rd Cesar & Mat Estrella
Rodeo, CA 94572 Concord, CA 94519 1093 Viewpoint Blvd
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 201 002 358 201 003 358 201 004
Fernando & Julia Costa Howard Masumura Antonio Villavicencio
1087 Viewpoint Blvd 1081 Viewpoint Blvd T Villavicencio
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 1075 Viewpoint Blvd
Rodeo, CA 94572
358 201. 005 358 201 006 358 201 007
Olben & Valentina Guzman Rebecca Harrison Edwin & Priscilla Abaya
1069 Viewpoint Blvd 1065 Viewpoint Blvd 1061 Viewpoint Blvd
Rodeo, CA. 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
-355 020 001 355 040 00 355 040 006
WICKLAND OIL TERMINALS WICKLA OIL TERMINALS SELBY SCHOOL DISTRICT
PO Box 13648 PO Bo 13648 NO STREET NAME or NUMBER
Sacramento, CA 95853 ,Sacramento, CA 95853 Crockett, CA 94525
357 194 001 357 194 003 357 194 004
Belvin & Nola Dill Anthony Silva Frank Martin
919 Elm Dr 173 Napa St 153 Napa St
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
357 194 005 357 194 006 357 197 007
Manuel & Georgina Gomes Jeffrey & Maria March Lupe Lechuga
177 Napa St 5322 Saddleback Ct 216 Suisun Ave
Rodeo, CA 94572 E1 Sobrante, CA 94803 Rodeo, CA 94572
357 197 008 357 197 009 357 197 010
Jacinto Ornelas Jr. Lydia Costa Lino & Madeline Amaral
Maria Esther Reyes Madeline Amaral 226 Suisun Ave
218 Suisun Ave 745 Lassen St Rodeo, CA 94572
Rodeo, CA 94572 Richmond, CA 94805
357 198 001 357 198 002 357 198 003
Richard & Tami Zampa Melvin & Carla Hertzog Nancy Wylie-Tobin
3.132 3rd St 1126 3rd St Thomas Peeling
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 1114 3rd St
Rodeo, CA 94572
357 198 004 357 198 005 357 198 007
Mark & Nancy Pheatt Darrell & Doris Perry Dennis & Helen Quilici
8846 Palladay Rd 1309 7th St 219 Suisun Ave
Elverta, CA 95626 Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
357 198 009 357 198 011 357 198 012
Bruce Morgan. Susan Catalli Benjamin Javier
Deborah Hobbs 227 Suisun Ave Maria-Lourde Javier
215 Suisun Ave Rodeo, CA 94572 225 Suisun Ave
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
357 198 013 357 198 014 357 198 015
Orlando Lee Farmer Herman Silveira Rizaldy & Leila Flores
218 Vallejo Ave 217 Suisun Ave 220 Vallejo Ave
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
357 198 016 357 198 9 357 199 001
Jess & Estelle Esqueda Jess stelle Esqueda Michael & Diana Adams
230 Vallejo Ave 23 allejo Ave 1218 3rd St
Rodeo, CA 94572 deo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
357 199. 002 357 199 003 357 199 004
William Forshee Brian & Wendy Barnes Richard & Joyce Pearson
Dolores Forshee William Norton Jr. PO Box 244
1214 3rd St 1210 3rd St Rodeo, CA 94572
Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572
�--�; ATTACHMENT "B"
9/5/96
Fn v
Board of Supervisorsrn
-�
Contra Costa County v-
Re: Appeal on UnocaPs Land Use Permit un
. En
-Dear Members of the Board,
We are the fenceline monitoring committee members (excluding Unocal), and signatories
and representatives of signatories of the Good Neighbor Agreement(GNA), and are
authorized under the LUP•to jointly develop a fenceline monitoring system with Unocal.
We are writing tol appeal the Planning Commission's decision of August 27 to uphold the
Zoning Administrator's ruling on the Unocal Land Use Permit. While both the Zoning
Administrator and the Planning Commission have been key in moving Unocal toward-
compliance,
owardcompliance,there are still major issues which are unresolved that'we feel we must bring
before the Board of Supervisors in this appeal.
However, we want.to make it clear that we are currently in negotiations with Unocal, and-
that these negotiations have taken a positive turn after the recent Planning Commission
hearing. We hope that these negotiations.will result in an agreement with Unocal,so that
we can retractthis appeal. Ve will inform the County as soon as possible on this issue,
but in the meantime, deadlines require that we submit this appeal to you within ten days
of the Planning Commission meeting or lose the opportunity (since we have no written
- commitment developed yet.with Unocal). We will be meeting with Unocal again next
week.
In the meantime, we feel our original reasons for the appeal, listed in our letter of July 25
_She Planning Commission (attached) are still valid. Below we also provide our updated
reasons for this appeal,based on the discussion at the.Planning Commission hearing.
The Planning Commission denied our appeal, apparently based on a feeling that there is
currently:a deadline put in place by the Zoning Administrator of November 22 for Unocal
to submit a plan.to the Commission and come back into compliance.. However, this
deadline will delay the final installation greatly past the deadlines of the Land Use
Permit, and does not provide a mechanism forgetting over the disagreement between
Unocal and community members which has been a major problem for months now.
The fact that Unocal now has FTIR monitors up and running, as required by the Zoning
Administrator for a temporary system, shouldn't obscure the fact that there is no
commitment from Unocal on how the instruments are to be used.or integrated into a final
design, which chemicals are monitored, how data is shared, etc. In fact no final design
exists at all at this time.
t
Unocal could still meet the November 1 deadline for final installation which is required
by the Land Use Permit. Unocal could submit-a-final design to the County for approval
(which meets the general guidance we have proposed in our attached-original appeal)' "
much earlier than the November.22 date given.by the Zoning Administrator.
In addition, a guidance document should be adopted by the County on the content of the
final monitoring.plan in"order to set some ground rules everyone can be held to. The
County could give Unocal a clear requirement that it will not approve a plan unless it
meets these guidance principles. If there are any additional unforeseen details not
addressed by the guidance document, the county could handle these as a final follow-up
to the main issues.
This approach will provide the working group and community members who have
testified in support of the appeal, with some assurance that progress is made toward a
final plan. At this.time, we have only a temporary system at the refinery, and a future
date when Unocal is expected to propose a final system. Unocal has already missed the
July 1 deadline for having an approved plan, and has announced it will miss the
November 1 deadline. If we simply wait until the Nov. 22 date proposed by the Zoning
Administrator, and Unocal misses this deadline, we are no further along in the process to
get a final system;than we were months ago. "
If Unocal,does submit a proposal by.the November 22 Zoning Administrator deadline,
but it does not meet the minimum requirements.of the County and community members,
then we are still no further along toward a final system. If on the other hand, Unocal is
given reasonable guidelines by the County for the development of a plan within two
- -weeks of the decision of the Supervisors, with a month further for development of the
detailed engineering specifications, it will greatly increase the chances that Unocal will
come back to compliance at the earliest practicable date, and that the community and the
County will be in agreement with this plan.
The guidance we are proposing is the same guidance we proposed to the Planning
Commission in our original appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision. We believe
these are very reasonable guidelines which in summary require that Unocal's plan
adequately cover the fenceline, monitor the largest practicable number of chemicals at the .
lowest.detection limits, provide modem and other access to the data, use the FTIR
equipment tested at the facility, meet the terms of the Land Use Permit, and add the Ultra-
Violet upgrade which will be available next year to add to the FTIR equipment, so that
both equipment together can optimize the number of chemicals'monitored. These
guidelines are very much consistent with the Land Use Permit and the discussions we
have had with Unocal in our Working Group meetings (of the Fenceline Monitoring
Committee which is authorized by the Land Use Permit and Good Neighbor Agreement
to develop the system).
In our original appeal, we proposed two example methods for the County to bring Unocal
into compliance, 1) citing Unocal as a public nuisance as provided by County code due to
2
r
non-compliance with the-permit, or 2) giving Unocal notice that it needed to comeback
into compliance or permit revocation proceedings would begin. We had seen number 1)
as a milder approach and had recommended it (Unocal has already been cited numerous
times as a public nuisance by the Air District;this is a standard approach with other
agencies). However, it seemed that the Planning Commission viewed citing Unocal as a .-
public nuisance as a severe action.. We wish to again make it clear that,our main concern
is the setting of guidelines and deadlines for putting a final plan in place. We are not
wedded to any one.particular tool the County uses to do this..However;we do wish to
support jobs and would be very sorry to see matters come to the point where actual permit
revocation would be necessary. 'We would like to see every reasonable means possible
used to bring Unocal back into compliance.
We appreciate all of the efforts of the County staff, Zoning Administrator, and Planning
Commission so far to address this issue, which is of critical importance for increasing
safety at the Unocal refinery. Again, we hope that we will be able to come to agreement
with Unocal during our current negotiations; if not, we hope to see the County provide
guidelines for a final system as listed in our attached original appeal.
Sincerely,
Lynn Cherry Jay Gunkelman Julia May Andy Mechling
f �
3
E{I Ili-?�-1'±'fit, 1 c•r, ;, +, :al._4 r Y ..n t - /"\ l t_t. 1�1'�'�'� F' :Cit
ill=ati_ .
' ATTAUHMENT,A
7/25/96
Contra Costa County
Community Development
Delivered by Hand J�AteN �
Re: Appeal of the decision an Unocal's:t land Use Permit 001hpliance
made during the Annual Review prU..,ess by the?ening Administrator
To'Whom it May Concern:
We are writing to appeal the Zoning Adrnin.istrator's decision of July 15",made during
the Annul Review of Unocal's compliance with the.Land Use Permit(LUP). Our,
zoncerns,address the Zoning Adffunistrator's decision on the air pollution monitoring
-(fenceline monitoring)provisions,as well as some additional provisions, We are the
fenceline monitoring cormunittee members("chiding Unocal),and we are signatories and
representatives of signatories of t33e Good Neighbor Agreement(GNA),and are
authorized under the LUP to jointly develop a fenceline mon; ring system with Unocal.
Unocal was required by the LUP•to work jointly with the fenceline monitoring committee
to develop a test program and fmiO system for fenceline monitoring of air poIlution.. This
process worked very well through':most of last year,but since late '95,Unocal has not
cooperated with the committee and has not complied vtith the requirements of the LUP.
At this time:
1) Unocal is out os compliance with the LUPJs missing deadlines in the LUP,and has
submitted.no plan for a final rao, toring system whioh.is required by the LUP.
_2) The Zoning Administrator% decision failed to bring Unocal into compliance,but
concentrated instead on developing a temporary system..
3) The Planning Commission tins the authority and duty to bring Unocal into
compliance to protect public health and safety..
4) We propose a plan to bring Unocal Into compliance,thr, igh the County providing
guidance on a monitoring platz with a deadline for submittal.
Unocal's non-compliance means a delay in the public having the protection of a rn
comprehensive fenceline monitoring system which can provide early warning on'r -�"sesrG
o
of toxic air pollution from the refinery,so that releases can be stopped. '
r r�
OVE
EcfT i as 5 B
_,-22-1996
�_-1_4ar 1� ��
H_ ,-cc _ _ -
1} Unocal is:out of ca`r;. lrariCe with the'Land.Use Permit
Unocal failed to comply with the following Land Use Permit conditions. The County
staff also found this to be the case in she staff reports,.as.cited below.
A) Na Mutually Agreeable Process: Unocal has stopped working toward a
mdnproposal muuall a reeable�Pto- e fenceline�mtn comini4ee.eart. :dlvs
year and claimed there was no requirement to do so,-contrary to the LUP. (75. A.).
Unocal had previously mrorked well with the fenceline'aommittee through most of
'95;and jointly developed a set of guidelines for the test program and final system
with the'committee (in the IFP).' The tested system (ETG's FTIl2)monitored 20
and 40 chemicals during two different phases of the six month test program.
Late in '95, Unocal brought in new representatives previously not involved in the
intensive work of the coi=ittee, and abandoned its commitment toward the
mutually agreeable process and tested monitoring system. in this appeal we are
proposing a return to a system based on the guideline and test-program jointly
developed by Unocal and the.committee_
B) Unocal refused to meet with Fenceline Monitor Committee: Contrary to the
requirements of the LUP,Unocal refused.to meet with the committee for over 2
months,causing missed deadlines. The LLT requires that Unocal meet as soon as
practicable with the fenceline committee after the final report on the test program
(due April 1)to develop'the final system.(75. A.6.)
On April 3,we requested weekly meetings with Unocal to get the-final system
ready for County review. Unocal refused to meet to discuss the final system.
Unocal also refused to meet the deadline.for submittal of a plan to the county
which was requested by-the County staff to be submitted by early to mid-May.
- Instead Unocal hired new consultants not previously involved in the program to
come up with.a system independently of the committee process. Even the names
of the new consultants were kept secret from the committee.
The proposal Unocal developed with the secret consultants during the 2 month
delay was completely unrelated to that jointly developed and tested by Unocal and
the fenceline committee. When finally revealed in mid-June, Unocal's proposal
only covered the monitoring of 5 chemicals as opposed to the 20-40 monitored
during the test program.
C) Unocal has missed the July V deadline for beginning installation, and to date
has submitted no monitoring plan to the County: There has been ample
opportunity to meet these deadlines. Had Unocal cooperated with the LUP-
specified process by meeting with the committee during April and May, and by
'(See attached"Request For Proposal and Statement of Qualification open Path Fenceline Monitoring,"
(RFP)which was written by Unocal after joint development by Unocal and the committee, for the purpose
of desmbing the goals of the feneeline monitoring program to consultants working with the committee.)
2
17:c(' filfU}IFltt�
working toward a final system based on that chosen by Unocal itself,jointly with
the committee,then Unocal could easily have met the deadline for submittal of a
proposal to the County stiff by early to mid-May, so that it.could-have'been
approved and installation could begin as required by July 1 (75. A. 6.). Instead
Unocal has now missed the July I'deadline, and has threatened to miss the
November 1 for installation to be complete. (75.) "
D) Unocal is.planning furtbe.r.delays:.Unocal is deliberately planning to further
delay the development of the final system, by stopping the fenceline monitoring
committee process again,by going to another body for approval of the plan(the _
Community Advisory Panel or-CAP review). While we are happy to see review
of this issue by other community members,it cannot.be used by Unocal as an
excuse for further delay. Furthermore,the CAP hes no autharity.under the LUP
for approval of the.plan, and does not have the knowledge on the technology
which the fenceline monitoring committee has-developed over the last.l %s years..
The LUP designates the representatives of the GNA signatories as the body which
develops a"mutually'agreeable"fenceline monitoring system With Unocal, not
theCAP., (75. A) These representatives makeup the fenceline monitor
committee. In addition, it would take many months for the CAP'to review all the
documents and take part.in all the demonstrations which the fence-line committee
received.
The CAP members are also,divided on this issue. This past Monday,July 22,the
CAP members considered the issue of reviewing the fenceline monitoring plan
which Unocal proposed, motions were considered,but could not agree to review
the monitoring plan. Issues brought up by CAP members included the problem of
lack of background on the technology, and the problem that the LUP and GNA.
_ require the review and approval to be done by the fenceline monitoring
committee, not the CAP. It may take some time for the CAP to decide whether to
review the Unocal plan.
E) Data sharing was not carried out.- -Unocal did not ensure the sharing of all data,
by allowing the consultants supervised by Unocal to erase data,to allow storage
disks to.overflow,and to deliberately not save certain data, See the final test
report and committee letters.
F) Monthly meetings were not held. Unocal did not cavy out monthly public
meetings required by the LUP.. Eventually (in the spring of'96)Unocal did hold
two public meetings, afte:r requested by one of the committee members. For one
of these meetings, only one day's notice was given in the paper, for the other, only
two days' notice was given. The meetings were not carried out on a monthly
basis.
G) The Unocal-proposed system will not protect the community and does not
meet the spirit and intent of the agreement. Unocal is seeking to severely limit the
number of chemicals mordtored by the final systern. The Unocal-proposed system
3
lt�{ ':I_.��el��F7riirl-it . ._. '.;' -, -1 `•1� P,C-;-,7%4
only monitors 5 chemicals,rather than the 20-40.compounds monitored by the..
system jointly developed and tested by the fenceline monitoring committee with
Unocal as a member.
The Catacarb release.of'94 which-precipitated these LUPand GNA requir'eme-nts'
for fenceline monitoring could have been detected by the jointly tested system
(which monitors for diethianolamine), but could not have been detected by the
system proposed by Unocal. With the system proposed by Unocal, a Catacarb.
type accident could.happen again,the chemicals would not be detected, and the
release could go on for 16 days the,same way it occurred in 1994.
Unocal has made claims to us that.only the five chemicals thev are proposing
monitoring have a probability to be released in amounts high enough to cause
harm. This is clearly-untrue. Besides the Acutely Hazardoi s_Materials (AHMs)
they propose monitoring,there are other AHMs present at the.refinery. In
addition,many chemicals.present at*.e refinery which are not AHMs'can still
cause acute health impacts, as is well known to the county, Examples are MTBE,
xylene, and carbon disulfide,to name only a few. Please see the test program
final report for a full list of the many chemicals detected. Out of the
approximately 40 chemicals monitored during the test program,all but about 6
were detected at the refinery. The County has access to a large.amount of data on
the toxic impacts which kaclude both short term and long term effects,.for most of
these chemicals. For protection of,public health, the monitoring system needs to
look at as full a range of chemicals as possible,rather than pre judging what types
of accidents might tbeoretically happen.
2). The Zoning Administrator',, decision failed_to bring Unocal into compliance,but
_ concentrated instead on developing a temporary system.
The Zoning Administrator's decision consisted mainly of the following: 1)requiring
Unocal to put in a temporary system based on that which we are requesting(ETG's
MR), and 2)requiring Unocal to meet with him in October and late November;at which
point he will decide about any further action.
The Zoning Administrator's decision did not correct Unocal's non-compliance with the
LUP. His decision:
A) Concentrate's only on the interim system: The decision concentrates on
putting an interim system in place. The temporary system provides a good
stopgap measure but it has no bearing on the final design. Also,the merit of
the temporary system is in the high-quality equipment chosen,however,the
details of how this system is used(such as which chemicals are monitored,
4
-� - .
P. tFt r i,r
how it ties into the community warning system,.where it is placed, etc.-)-have
been left up to Unocia. The Zoning Administrator did ask Unocal to report on
how it would address these details,but this does not include the fenceline
monitoring committee in the process,nor does it address the guidelines(in the
RFP)developed jointly by Unocal and the committee in '95.
B) Disregards the final installation deadline: The decision does nothing to .
ensure that the final system is installed by the Nov. I deadline,.even.though it
could still be met. In fact,the.decision encourages missing the deadline;since
Unocal is asked to report back to the Zoning Administrator,after the deadline
is passed. In addition,the decision does nothing to make sure that Unocal
stops delaying and begins again to work in good faith to develop a final plan.
C) Disregards the approved process for reaching agreement: The decision
allows further delay of the development of an approved plan by tolerating the
stopping of the authorized fenceline monitor committee review process while
Unocal brings the proposal before-another body without approval authority
(the CAP);
D) Disregard's the County's authority to bring Unocal to compliance: The
County has the autho-Aty to take additional actions to ensure that Unocal come
'back into compliance, get an adequate final plan submitted, and cooperate
with.the committee. ,See our section 3)below on the Planning Commission's
authority,which also pertains to the Zoning Administrator.
3) The Planning Commission has the_authority and duty to bring.Unocal into
compliance to protect-public health and safety.
Unocal delayed the process repeatedly, and appears to find more delays in its interest. It
is crucial for the County to take decisive action to stop this.bottleneck.
To stop Unocal's delays and get an adequate fenceline monitoring system in place,
the Planning Commission could:
--Set Luidalines for an adt�quate f nal.fenceline monitor plan,with a deadline far
submittal. (See the next sf.ction (4)for our proposed guidelines.)
--Tell Unocal that failure to comply would result in-the revocation proceedings
beginning after the missed deadline.
This approach would give Unocal adequate warning to avoid the revocation process,but
would also provide Unocal a serious mandate for coming into compliance.
As an alternative the county could instead:
S
rif!i!'Rilty� .[!Fur lt_1 _c 1` may.. F t]t'r
---Immediately find Unocal as a public nuisance, consistent with the County Code.
The code finds that g,= ith its LUP is a-pu lic
nuisance,' Abatement hearings can be consequently set up.3
--The County can set aMtional con itiors to bring a facility into compliance and
abate the nuisance. Municipalities in the case of nuisances have broad powers to
require facilities to adopt measures to safeguard the public health and safety.` The
County could directly order Unocal to install a model air pollution monitoring
system consistentwith guidelines set by the County, as an abatement measure.
--The_ ounty can also make summary abatement-decisions to speedup the public
nuisance/abatement process,if the non-compliance causes a threat to public '
health and safety,as is the case with Unocal. (14.6,406) Clearly Unocal"s and the
County's lack of information on the chemical emissions fronrihe Catacarb release
caused a threat to public health, by allowing toxic releases for 16 days,while
Unocal wrongly claimed that the releases were non-toxic. -Identifying such
releases allows Unocal and the County to understand when a threat is occurring,
so that it can be stopped. Taus the lack of a monitoring system-in Unocal's case
presents an ongoing threat to public health and safety.
4) We pro op se a plan to bring Unocal into compliance:
1) Find Unocal out of compliance with its LUP and find Unocal'a_public nuisance;
2) " Set Guidelines for a fenceline monitoring system to be designed and submitted to
the County staff by Unocal by September 25,including detailed engineering
specifications,with a final deadline for installation by November 1 (see below);
3) Set another public hearing for the next Planning Commission meeting after
September 25;
4) At this hearing if the Planning Commission finds that Unocal has-not submitted a
design meeting the Guidc;lines,permit revocation proceedings will begin
immediately against Unocal.
Guidelines which Unocal must meet on the Final Monitoring System
The system must:
A) Meet-the terms of the LUP.
'82-2.006 Enforcement. No land in the unincorporated area of this county shall be used for any purpose
not permitted under Divisions 82 and tA,nor shall any building or structure be erected,const-ucted,
altered,moved or maintained contrary to Divisions 82 and 84. Any use of land,building or structure
contrary to Divisions 82 and 84 is unlawful and a public nuisance.
9 Article 14-6, Civil Enforcement
4 People v.Mitchell Bros,. 114 Cal.App.3d 923,930(1981). City of San Jose v. Super.Ct., 12 Cal.3d 447,
464(1974). Morton v.Super. Ct., 124 Cal.App.2d 577,269 P.2d 81,84(1954).
6
H�i'.i-u-19 fir. 14 t_14_1 �lrii�_RlY4i.1 '-Lle0�A .1 rrt,ef) � �•jll_��;:}� 1 i` F'.l'IC
i
B) Meet the terms'o'f the RFP (Request for Proposal, attached)jointly developed-by
Unocal and the fenceline.mo. itoring committee. This includes monitoring the largest
number of chemicals at the lowest reasonable detection level, and the ability to
provide early notification to the surrounding communities of an emission. It also
includes developing a longer-term plan for using software which can calculate levels
down,Aind,using air pollution dispersion modelling. (Software is slready available.to
do this.) .
C) Be consistent with the equipment Jointly chosen and mutually.agreed to and tested by
Unocal and the fenceline monitoring committee:.specifically,ETG's FTIR
equipment. Add Lasair equipment for.detecting H2S, as proposed by the consultant
used-by Unocal and the corninittee in '95.
D). Monitor the chemicals which were monitored during test progran`f in real time.
E) Adequately protect the surrounding communities by covering most of the fenceline,
using the siting diagram,which we have previously submitted to.the Planning
Commission at the June 256�hearing, This shows how 3;FTIR systems(using
scanners which can measure,in two different directions),could adequately cover the
fenceline.
F) Provide an adequate plan for automatically tying into the community warning
systems.
G) Include installation of Ultra=Violet(IJV) equipment by July `97. At that time, ETG's
system.will have both UV and MR available in one system. Once UV is installed,
any chemical better detected by the UV system will be monifored by this system, and
chemicals better monitored by the FIR and Lasair systems will be monitored.by
them.
H) Provide monthly reports to the County,the signatories, and the BAAQMD on the.
emissions,and provide any additional fenceline monitoring data requested by these,
parties within 2 working days of the request.
1) Provide modem access to the data for these parties.
J) include adequate meteorological equipment, software for accidental release
protection, and siting for the equipment.
K) Show evidence that the system will provide the best available.technology(as required .
by the LUP (75.)), at the earliest practicable date, and show evidence that the system
will be adequately maintained.
For the record, we wish to correct mistatements about our concerns made by Unocal
officials,who joined the process late, and which have been repeated by others who took
the Unocal statements as fact. These Unocal officials have stated that the committee is
mainly concerned about ongoing; low-level releases,and not concerned about large
accidental releases. This is completely false. The entire process that we have been`
working toward for the last year and a half is'on early warning for accidental releases. It
7
HUG 01
r, 1 '01 e nf�r_rnitrj.;L6veIc E_�nr_r,t.
j
is true that we have also brought up the concern about lower level releases, but this is a
secondary,though very serious. .
lhank you for your consideration. We the undersigned are the full fenceline monitor .
committee except for Unocal. VVe are all either a signatory or a representatives of a
signatory of the Good Neighbor Agreement.
Sincerely;
Lynn.Cherry Jay Gunkelman Julia May Andy Mechling
V
s
This Page Left
Intentionally Blank
ATTACHMENT "C"
Agenda Item # 3
Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY. AUGUST 27. 1996 - 7:30 P.M.
I. INTRODUCTION
UNOCAL CORPORATION (Applicant & Owner), County File #LP932038: This is an
appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to review the applicant's compliance with
the land use permit conditions. The land use permit allows the constructions and
operation of the Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project. The project includes the
construction and operation of a hydrogen plant, and the modification of three existing
processing units (the pentane handling/benzene saturation equipment, the gasoline
blender and the steam/power plant). The project also includes the construction of a
maximum of 10 new storage tanks. The project is located on approximately 25 areas
of the 1,000 acre Unocal San Francisco Refinery, in the Rodeo area.
II. RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. Accept any public testimony concerning the appeal dated July 25, 1996 by Mr. Lynn
Cherry, Mr. Jay Gunkelman, Ms. Julia May, and Mr. Andy Mechling of the Zoning
Administrator's decision at the July 15, 1996 Zoning Administrator Hearing.
B. Deny this appeal and uphold the July 15, 1996 decision by the Zoning Administrator
concerning Unocal's compliance with Condition of Approval 75 of Unocal's Land Use
Permit 2038-93.
Ill. DISCUSSION:
Condition of Approval 75 requires Unocal "to test and install an air pollution monitoring
system that is mutually agreeable to the signatories of its Good Neighbor Agreement and the
County Zoning Administrator. . . " The condition includes several early milestones as well
as completion of a six-month test program, an interim report (December 1, , a ina �pp3'
report(April 1, 1996) to the signatories of the Good Neighbor Agreement, and a Mal design
for the system. It further requires that Unocal meet with the signatories "to finalize the design
. . as soon as practical after the final report", submit this final design to the Planning
Commission for review and approval, begin installing monitoring equipment by July 1, 1996
and begin full operation of the final system by November 1, 1996.
The four Signatories to the Good Neighbor Agreement formed a "Working Group"which has
been working with Unocal since January, 1995 to develop this monitoring program. The four
appellants listed in Item 11.A above are also this Working Group.
2
A. Zoning Administrator Hearings:
May 16, 1996 Hearing:
On May 16, 1996, the Zoning Administrator conducted a hearing to take public
comment on Unocal's compliance with its land use permit (Condition#4), to act on
Unocal's Annual Report (Condition #5), and to consider the approval of Unocal's
Good Neighbor Agreement (Conditions#77 N). Staff recommended a finding
that Unocal met all conditions in its Land Use Permit except for only one item in
Condition 75. Staff also expected Unocal would not meet its July 1., 1996 deadline.
Members of the Working Group testified that test program data had not been shared,
that Unocal was not working cooperatively with them, and that they preferred that
Unocal adopt the technology (FTIR monitoring system) used in the test program.
Unocal committed to release its proposed Final Design by June 7 and to meet with
the"Working Group"immediately thereafter. Unocal also requested an extension of
the July 1, 1996 deadline.
The Zoning Administrator(1) approved the Good Neighbor Agreement, (2) continued
the hearing for all other items to June 17, and (3) requested that the Unocal and the
Working Group report"or their progress at that time.
Prior to the continued hearing,
• Unocal released its proposed Final Design, which did not include FTIR
technology,
• Unocal met with the Working Group,
• Unocal notified the County that they could not meet the November 1, 1996
deadline to implement the final testing program, requesting an extension until
at least December, 1996.
• Members of the Working Group, which includes the appellants, wrote the
County objecting to Unocal's process and encouraging installation of FTIR
monitoring equipment, similar to that in the test program.
June 17, 1996 Continued ZA Hearing:
On June 17, 1996, the Zoning Administrator continued the hearing in Rodeo.
Individuals testified that they wanted a system installed quickly and preferred the
FTIR monitoring system to that proposed by Unocal. Communities for a Better
Environment (CBE) offered.Unocal use of its FTIR monitor.
The Zoning Administrator continued the hearing to July 15 and stated (1) that he
would brief the Planning Commission on June 25, and (2) that he expected Unocal
to promptly propose an FTIR-type monitoring system, to be operating prior to the start
of school and until operation of the finally approved system.
Prior to the continued hearing,
• Unocal proposed a"compromise" plan. They offered an FTIR"monitor to the
communities to operate and suggested that Unocal would install its previously
proposed monitor as the final design.
• The Zoning Administrator briefed the Planning Commissions.
• The Working Group asked the County to reject Unocal's compromise plan
and approve FTIR monitors as the final design.
3
July 15 Continued ZA Hearing.
On July 15, 1996, the Zoning Administrator continued the compliance hearing in
Rodeo and received extensive public comment requesting prompt action to install
some type of monitoring system in the Rodeo-Crockett area, preferably an FTIR-type
system. Unocal committed verbally to install two FTIR monitors on its fenceline, to
be operating prior to the start of school. In the interim, Unocal would install on its
property the FTIR monitor controlled by CBE, should CBE make it available. Unocal
also requested a six-month extension of the July 1 deadline for submitting a "final
design"to the Planning Commission. CBE requested that the Zoning Administrator
find Unocal out of compliance and begin permit revocation proceedings.
B. Zoning Administrator Decision:
At the July 15, 1996 hearing, the Zoning Administrator required the following four-
month schedule for Unocal to follow:
• Prior to the start of school, Unocal shall acquire, install and begin operating
an FTIR-monitoring system, at two locations along Unocal's"fenceline". The
system and data reporting shall be similar to that of the previous test
program. Unocal shall operate this system until the final system is approved
and operating fully.
• By July 25, Unocal shall confirm in writing exactly what monitoring equipment
is being installed, monitoring locations, details about its management and use
of the data, and how the data will be transmitted .to the County's Health
Services Department.
• By August 22, Unocal shall report in writing the exact status of the monitoring
system installation, confirming that it will be fully operational prior to the start
of school.
• By September 5, 5:00 p.m., Unocal shall confirm in writing that this
monitoring system is fully operational at the two specified locations.
• While Unocal awaits arrival of this monitoring equipment, it shall install the
FTIR monitoring equipment, as recently offered by CBE, within two days of
receipt (excluding weekends).
• Once any monitoring equipment (CBE's or that acquired directly by Unocal)
is operating, Unocal shall begin making monthly data reports, similar to those
provided during the test program, with data going at least to the Working
Group members and the Community-Development Department.
• By October 15, Unocal shall report in writing its progress in moving toward
agreement on a final design, including a list of all meetings and attendees
(through a signature sheet).
• By Friday, November 22, Unocal shall submit its Final Design for the
monitoring system to Planning Commission for its review and approval.
With these requirements, the Zoning Administrator assured that the monitoring
system repeatedly requested by community members at every hearing (including
CBE and other members of the Working Group)was operating by September 5, 1996,
which is prior to the start of school and two months prior to the November 1 deadline
contained in Condition of Approval 75. Second, the actions assured that there would
be no break in monitoring coverage as the parties work toward agreement. Third, the
action provided Unocal some additional time to reach agreement with the Working
Group — but not as much time as Unocal had requested. Fourth, this decision
created a detailed plan by which to monitor Unocal's efforts to reach agreement on
a final design. Note that this final design is subject to the review and approval of
4
the County Planning Commission, and will be ready for its review at its December
meeting. In the meantime, FTIR monitors will provide community protection until
replaced by the final system.
C. Unocal Actions in Response to the Zoning Administrator's Decision:
Since the July 15 hearing,the following actions have been taken. These actions are
consistent with the Zoning Administrator's compliance plan.
• On July 24, 1996, Unocal confirmed in writing that it will install two FTIR
monitors, using the same equipment and program as employed during the
last month of the test program. Results will be connected to the refinery
alarm system and the Community Warning System (thereby involving Health
Services Department). This letter satisfies the first deadline in the Zoning
Administrator's compliance plan.
• By late July, 1996, Unocal contracted with a third-party firm, RSA, Inc., to
operate and maintain the FTIR equipment.
• Unocal installed the test equipment received from CBE on July 31, 1996.
RSA, Inc., discovered that the equipment as received from CBE was not
operating properly. With CBE's concurrence, Unocal returned the equipment
to CBE.
• By August 6, 1996, Unocal had borrowed FTIR-equipment from RSA, Inc.,
(Attachment B) which was installed and operating by August 8, 1996.
• Unocal purchased FTIR equipment from ETG (manufacturer of equipment
used in the test program and lent to CBE) and has committed to it being
operational by September 5, 1996 and connected to the Community Warning
System.
D. Nature of the Appeal:
On July 25, 1996, Mr. Lynn Cherry, Mr. Jay Gunkelman, Ms. Julia May, and Mr. Andy
Mechling, all signatories of the Unocal Good Neighbor Agreement and members of
the"Working Group", appealed the Zoning Administrator's Decision of July 15, 1996
concerning"the air pollution monitoring (fenceline monitoring) provisions" as well as
"some additional provisions"which were not specified (see Attachment A).
The appeal letter makes four points, as outlined below, and concludes that Unocal's
non-compliance means a delay in public protection from a comprehensive fenceline
monitoring system providing early warning on toxic releases.
Point 1: Out of Compliance with the LUP
Statement of Appeal:
"Unocal is out of compliance with the LUP, is missing deadlines in the LUP,
and has submitted no plan for a final monitoring system which is required by
the LUP."
Staff Response:
The appellants' comments are practically identical to testimony received at
the three public hearings. The Zoning Administrator considered these
comments, as well as Unocal's request for additional time and the
communities' request for prompt action on a fenceline monitoring system. To
5
maximize public protection, he required prompt installation of an FTIR
monitoring system consistent with the communities' request, created
milestones by which to monitor Unocal's compliance, and allowed Unocal
more time to reach agreement with the Working Group on the final design.
Taken together, these actions increase public protection and increase the
possibility that the parties involved can reach agreement on the eventual
monitoring system.
The Appellants'comments(Paragraphs 1.D)claiming that Unocal is planning
further delays are speculative and will not be addressed in this response.
Appellants'comments on the final design (Paragraphs 1.G) are not pertinent
to-this appeal and should be addressed to the Planning Commission when
it reviews and approves the final design.
Point 2: Failure to ensure compliance and focus on temporary system
Statement of Appeal:
"The Zoning Administrator's decision failed to bring Unocal into compliance,
but concentrated instead on developing a temporary system."
Staff Response:
"Compliance" involves development of a system that is mutually agreeable
to Unocal and other members of the Working Group. The Zoning
Administrator had two choices—assume that the parties will never agree and
ask the Planning Commission to decide on a system; or extend the deadline
for the parties to reach agreement, and require strict reporting milestones
along the way.
The Zoning Administrator allowed additional time for the parties to reach
agreement and stipulated strict reporting milestones during the process. In
addition,the Zoning Administrator required immediate installation of an FTIR
monitoring system, to protect the public while these discussions take place.
These actions are consistent with public testimony requesting prompt action
on an FTIR monitoring system, as well as Unocal's request for additional time
to reach agreement with the Working Group. He has given Unocal and the
appellants a second chance to reach agreement, and has provided additional
public protection in the meantime.
Point 3: Declare Unocal a Public Nuisance in .order to protect public health and
safely
Statement of Appeal:
"The Planning Commission has the authority and duty to bring Unocal into
compliance to protect public health and safety." The appellants presume
Unocal will cause delays that will prevent installation of an adequate fenceline
monitoring system. The appellants suggest two options—(1) set guidelines
and a deadline for an adequate fenceline monitoring plan and commit to
revocation if the deadline is missed OR (2) find Unocal to be a "public
nuisance."
.6
Staff Response:
Staff response to option one is addressed under Point#4 below.
Staff disagrees with the opinion that the Planning Commission must declare
Unocal a public nuisance to protect public health and safety. Staff finds that
the Zoning Administrator's decision solves two problems simultaneously—
it increases protection of public health and safety through Unocal's
immediate installation of an appropriate monitoring system; and it allows and
encourages the parties to continue working toward a mutually agreeable final
design.
To date, Unocal has met the milestones set by the Zoning Administrator,
even though the appeal was pending—Unocal proposed an FTIR system by
July 15; explained its installation and management by July 25; installed
equipment lent by CBE. Indeed, Unocal has gone beyond the Zoning
Administrator's specific requests, consistent with the spirit of his decision,
taking additional actions on its own initiative to promptly borrow FTIR
equipment when that delivered by CBE was found to be damaged.
Point 4: Adopt Guidelines for an Adequate Test Program
Statement of Appeal:
"We propose a plan to bring Unocal into compliance, through the County
providing guidance on a monitoring plan with a deadline for submittal." The
appeal letter lists a September 25 deadline for submitting a final design,
following guidelines that incorporate the terms' of the test program's request
for proposal, require additional monitors, require UV equipment, require on-
line access to data to community members, plus other terms.
Staff Response:
The Land Use Permit provides no detailed guidelines for the monitoring
system, but it clearly anticipates that all the parties would negotiate in good
faith to find a mutually-agreeable plan. To adopt guidelines and monitoring
system parameters developed by one party and impose them unilaterally on
the other party is inconsistent with the spirit of the Land Use Permit. It
seems premature to adopt these guidelines when further progress is
available through negotiations.
Details on the final design are not appropriate for consideration now since the
final design is not yet before the Planning Commission. It will be submitted
by Unocal on November 22, 1996 and will be ready for Planning Commission
review in December.
The November 22, 1996 deadline imposed by the Zoning Administrator seems
reasonable. It is several months short of the time requested by Unocal but
long enough to allow resolution if both parties negotiate in good faith. Since
an FTIR monitor will be operating on both the north and south fence lines,
and since this information will be tied into the Community Warning System,
the public will benefit from additional protection while the parties continue
working toward a mutually-agreeable system.
7
F. Conclusion
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the
decision by the Zoning.Administrator. The Zoning Administrator assured that the
monitoring system repeatedly requested by community members at every hearing
(including CBE and other members of the Working Group) was operating by
September 5, 1996, which is prior to the start of school and two months prior to the
November 1 deadline contained in Condition of Approval 75. Second, his decision
assured that there would be no break in monitoring coverage as the parties work
toward agreement. Third, the decision provided Unocal some additional time to
reach agreement with the Working Group — but not as much time as Unocal had
requested. Fourth, this decision created a detailed plan by which to monitor
Unocal's efforts to reach agreement on a final design. Note that this final design is
subject to the review and approval of the County Planning Commission, and will be
ready for its review at its December meeting. In the meantime, FTIR monitors will
provide community protection until replaced by the final system.
DS:
j:\aw\shel8-27.srp
- - -•- � h Com'
7/25/96
Contra Costa County
Community Development
Delivered by Hand
Re: Appeal of the decision on Unocal's Land Use Permit compliance
made during the Annual Review process by.the Zoning Administrator
To Whom it May Concern:
We are writing to appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision of July 15",made during
the Annual Review of Unocal's compliance with the Land Use Permit(LUP). Our
concerns address the Zoning Administrator's decision on the air pollution monitoring
(fenceline monitoring)provisions,as well as some additional provisions. We are the
fenceline monitoring committee members(excluding Unocal),and we are signatories and
representatives of signatories of the Good Neighbor Agreement(GNA),and are
authorized under the LUP to jointly develop a fenceline monitoring system with Unocal.
Unocal was required by the LUP to work jointly with the fenceline monitoring committee
to develop a test program and final system for fenceline monitoring of air pollution. This
process worked very well through most of last year,but since late '95,Unocal has not
cooperated with the committee and has not complied with the requirements of the LUP.
At this time:
1) Unocal is out of compliance with the LUP,is missing deadlines in the LUP, and has
submitted no plan for a final monitoring system which is required by the LUP.
2) The Zoning Administrator's decision failed to bring Unocal into compliance,but
concentrated instead on developing a temporary system..
3) The Planning Commission has the authority and duty to bring Unocal into
compliance to protect public health and safety.
4) We propose a plan to bring Unocal into compliance,through the County providing
guidance on a monitoring plan with a deadline for submittal.
Unocal's non-compliance means a delay in the public having the protection of a rn
comprehensive fenceline monitoring system which can provide early warning on r es�HCD
of toxic air pollution from the refinery, so that releases can be stopped. rod' 'N—
in N
�P9�a03 $
' 6ylE
Q�PT Oa s4$
1) Unocal is out of compliance with the Land Use Permit
Unocal failed to comply with the following Land Use Permit conditions. The County
staff also found this to`be the case in the staff reports,as cited below.
A) No Mutually Agreeable Process: Unocal has stopped working toward a
proposal"mutually agreeable"to the fenceline monitoring committee early this
year and claimed there was no requirement to do so, contrary to the LUP. (75. A.)
Unocal had previously worked well with the fenceline committee through most of
'95,and jointly developed a set of guidelines for the test program and final system
with the committee(in the RFP).' The tested system(ETG's.FTIR)monitored 20
and 40.chemicals during two different phases of the six month test program.
Late in 795,Unocal brought in new representatives previously not involved in the
intensive work of the committee, and abandoned its commitment toward the
mutually agreeable process and tested monitoring system. In this appeal.Nye are
proposing a return to a system based on the guideline and test program jointly.
developed by Unocal and the committee.
B) Unocal refused to meet with Fenceline Monitor Committee: Contrary to the
requirements of the LUP, Unocal refused to meet with the committee for over 2
months, causing missed deadlines. The LUP requires that Unocal meet as soon as
practicable with the fenceline committee after the-final report.on the test program .
(due April 1)to.develop'the final system. (75. A.6.)
On April 3, we requested weekly meetings with Unocal to get the final system
ready for County review. Unocal refused to meet to discuss the final system..
Unocal also refused to meet the deadline for.submittal of a plan to the county
which was requested by the County staff to be.submitted by early to.mid-Maya
Instead,Unocal hired new consultants not previously involved in the program to
come.up with a system independently of the committee process. 'Even the names
of the new.consultants were kept secret from the committee.
The proposal Unocal developed with the secret consultants during th61 month .
delay was completely unrelated to that jointly developed_and tested by Unocal and
the fenceline committee. When finally revealed in mid-June,Unocal's proposal
only covered:the monitoring of 5 chemicals as opposed to the 20-40 monitored
during the test program.
C) Unocal has missed the July is`deadline for beginning installation, and to date
has submitted no monitoring plan to the County: There has.been ample
opportunity to meet these deadlines. Had Unocal cooperated with the LUP-
specified process by meeting with the committee during April and May, and by
(See attached"Request For Proposal and Statement of Qualification Open Path Fenceline Monitoring,"
(RFP)which was written by Unocal after joint development by Unocal and the committee,for the purpose
of describing the goals of the fenceline monitoring program to consultants working with the committee.)
2
working toward a final system based on that chosen,by Unocal itself;jointly with
the committee,then.Unocal could easily have met the deadline,for submittal of a :
proposal to the County staff by early to mid May;so that it could.:have been
approved and installation could begin as required by July 1.(75.A. 6.). Instead
Unocal has now missed the July l'deadline;,and has threatened to miss the
November 1 for:installation to be complete. (75.)
D) Unocal is.planning further delays: Unocal is deliberately.planning:to,further
delay the development:of the final system,by stopping the fenceline monitoring
committee process,agam,'by going to another body for approval of the plan(the
Community Advisory Panel.or CAP review). While we are happy to.,see review _
of this issue by other community members,it cannot be used.by Unocal as an
excuse for further delay. Furthermore,the CAP has no authority under the LUP .
for approval of the plan, and does not have.the knowledge.on the technology
which the.fenceline.monitoring committee has;developed over the last 1 '/z years.
The LUP designates the representatives o£the GNA signatories as the body which
develops a"mutually agreeable'fenceline monitoring system with Unocal,not
the CAP. (75. A) These representatives make up the fenceline monitor
committee. In addition,it would take many months for:the CAP to review all the
documents and-take part in all the demonstrations.which the fenceline committee
received.
The CAP members are also divided on this issue. This past Monday,July.22,the
CAP members corisidered the issue of reviewing the fenceline:monitoring plan
which Unocal proposed, motions.were considered,but could not agree to review
the monitoring plan. Issues brought up by CAP members included the problem of
lack of background on the technology, and the problem.that the'LUP and GNA
require the.review and approval to be done by the fenceline monitoring
committee,not the CAP. It may take sometime.for the CAP to decide'whether to
review the Unocal.plan
E) Data sharing was not carried out: Unocal.did riot ensure the sharing of all data,
by allowing the consultants supervised by Unocal to.erase.data..to allow storage.
disks to.overflow, and to deliberately not save certain data.. See.the final.test
report and committee letters:
F) Monthly meetings were not held. Unocal did not carry.out monthly public'
meetings required by the LUP. Eventually(in the spring of'96)Unocal did hold
two public meetings,after requested by one of the committee members. For.one
of these meetings,.only one day's notice was given in the paper,:for the other,.only
two days' notice was given. The meetings were not carried out on a monthly
basis.
G) The Unocal-proposed system will not protect the community and does not
meet the spirit and intent of the agreement. Unocal is seeking to severely limit the
number of chemicals monitored by the final system. The Unocal-proposed system
3
only monitors 5 chemicals,rather than the 20-40 compounds monitored by the
system jointly developed and tested by the.fenceline monitoring,committee with
Unocal as a member.
The Catacarb release of.'94 which precipitated these.LUP and GNA requirements
for fenceline monitoring could have been detected bythe jointlytested system
.(which monitors for diethanolamine),but could not have been detected by the
system proposed by Unocal. With the system proposed by.Unocal,a Catacarb-
-type accident could happen again,the chemicals would not be.detected, and the
release could go on for 16 days the same way it occurred in.1994.
Unocal has made.claims-to us that only,the five chemicals they.are proposing
monitoring have a probability to be released.in.amounts high enough to cause
harm. This is clearly.untrue. Besides the.Acutely Hazardous.Materials (AHMs)
they propose monitoring,there are other AHMs present at:the refinery. In
addition,many chemicals present at the refinery which are not AHMs can still
cause acute health impacts, as is well known to the county. Examples are MTBE,
xylene; and carbon disulfide,to name only a few.. Please see the test program
final report for a full list of the many,chemicals detected. Out of the
approximately 40 chemicals monitored during the test program, all but about 6
were detected at the refinery. The County has access.to.a large amount of data on
the toxic impacts which include both short-term' and.long term effects,for most of
these chemicals. For protection of public health,the monitoring system needs to
look at as full a range of chemicals as possible,rather than pre-judging what types
of accidents might theoretically happen.
2) The Zoning Administrator's decision failed to bring Unocal into compliance,but
concentrated instead on developing a temporary system.
The Zoning Administrator's decision consisted mainly of the following: 1)requiring
Unocal to put in a temporary system based on that which we are requesting(ETG's
FTIR), and 2)requiring Unocal.to meet with him in October andate November, at which
point he will decide about any further action.
The Zoning Administrator's decision did not correct Unocal's non-compliance with the
LUP. His decision:
A) Concentrate's only on the interim system: The decision concentrates on
putting an interim system in place. The temporary system provides a•good
stop-gap measure but it has no bearing on the final design. Also, the.merit of
the temporary system is in thehigh-quality equipment chosen, however, the
details of how this system,is used(such as which chemicals are monitored,
4
how it ties into the.community warning system,.where it is placed,etc.)have
been left up to Unocal. The Zoning.Administrator did ask Unocal to report on
how it would address these details,but this does not include the fenceline
monitoring committee in the process,nor does it address the guidelines(in the
RFP)developed jointly by Unocal and the committee in '95.
B) Disregards the final installation deadline: The decision does nothing to
ensure.tliat the final system is installed by the Nov. 1 deadline,even though it.
could still be met. In fact,the decision encourages missing the deadline, since .
Unocal is asked to report back to the Zoning Administrator, after the deadline
is passed. In addition,the decision does nothing to make sure that Unocal
stops delaying and begins again to work in good faith to develop a final plan.:
C) Disregards the approved process for reaching agreement: The decision
allows•further delayof the development of an approved plan by tolerating the
stopping of the authorized fenceline monitor committee review process while
Unocal brings the proposal before-.another body without approval authority '
(the,CAP);.
D) Disregard's the County's authority to bring Unocal to compliance: The
County has the authority to take additional actions to ensure that Unocal come
back into compliance; get an adequate final plan submitted, and cooperate
with the committee. See our section 3)below on the Planning Commission's
authority,which also pertains to the Zoning Administrator*.
3)The Planning Commission has the authority and duty to bring Unocal-into
compliance to protect public health and safety.
Unocal delayed the process,repeatedly,and appears to find more delays in its interest. It
is crucial for the County to take decisive action to stop this bottleneck.
To stop Unocal's.delays and get an adequate fenceline monitoring system in place,
the Planning Commission could:
--Set guidelines for an adequate final fenceline monitor plan, with a deadline for
submittal. (See the next section(4) for our proposed guidelines.)
--Tell Unocal that failure to comply would result in the revocation proceedings
beginning after the missed.deadline.
This approach would give Unocal adequate waming.to avoid the revocation process,but .
would also provide Unocal a serious mandate for coming into compliance.
As an alternative the county could instead:
5
--Immediately find Unocal as a public nuisance,consistent with the County Code.
The code finds that a party which fails to comply with its LUP isa public
nuisance..2.Abatement hearings can be consequently set up.3
--The County can set additional conditions to bring a facility into compliance and
abate the nuisance. Municipalities in the case of nuisances have broad powers to
require facilities to adopt measures to safeguard the public health and safety.' The
County..could directly order Unocal to install a model,air pollution monitoring
system consistent with guidelines set by the County, as an abatement measure.
--The County can also make summary abatement decisions to speed up the public
nuisance'/abatement process, if the non-compliance causes a threat to public -
health and safety;as is the case with Unocal. (14-6.406) Clearly Unocal's and the
County's lack of information.on the chemical emissions from the Catacarb release
caused a-threat to.public health,by allowing toxic releases for 16 days,while
Unocal wrongly claimed thatthe releases were non-toxic: Identifying such
releases allows Unocal and the County to understand when a threat is occurring,
so that it can be stopped..Thus the lack.of a monitoring system in Unocal's case .
presents an ongoing threat to public health and safety.
4)We propose a plan to bring Unocal.into compliance:
A) Find.Unocal out of compliance with its LUP and find Unocal a public nuisance;.
2) Set Guidelines for a fenceline.monitoring system to be designed and submitted to
the County`staff by Unocal by September-25, including detailed engineering
specifications,with a final deadline for installation by November'1 .(see:below);
3) Set another public hearing for the next'Planning Commission meeting after
September 25;
4) At this hearing if the Planning Commission finds that Unocal has not submitted a
design.meeting the Guidelines;permit revocation proceedings will begin
immediately.against Unocal.
Guidelines which Unocal must meet on the Final.Monitoring.System
The system must:
A) Meet the.terms of the LUP:
z 82-2.006 Enforcement: No land in the unincorporated area of this county shall be used for any purpose
not permitted under Divisions 82 and.84,nor shall any building or structure be erected,constructed,
altered,moved or maintained contrary to Divisions 82 and 84. Any use of land;building or structure
contrary to Divisions 82 and 84 is unlawful and a public nuisance.'
'Article 14-6,Civil Enforcement
'People v,Mitchell Bros., 114 Ca1.App.3d 923,930(1981). City of San Jose v. Super.Ct., 12 Cal.3d 447,
464(1974). Morton,v. Super.Ct., 124.Cal.App.2d 577,269 P.2d 81, 84(1954).
6
B) Meet the terms of the RFP (Request for Proposal, attached)jointly developed by
Unocal and the fenceline monitoring committee. This includes monitoring the largest
number of chemicals at the lowest reasonable detection level, and the ability to
provide early notification to the surrounding communities of an emission.,It also
includes developing..a longer-term plan for using software which can calculate levels
downwind,.using air,pollution dispersion modelling. (Software is already available to
do this
C) Be consistent with the equipment jointly chosen and mutually agreed to and tested by
'Unocal and the fenceline monitoring committee: specifically,ETG'-s FTIR
equipment. Add Lasair equipment for detecting 112S, as proposed by the consultant
used by Unocal and the committee in.'95,
D).Monitor the chemicals which were monitored during test program in real'time.
E) Adequately,protect the surrounding communities by covering most of the fenceline,
using the siting diagram,which we have previously submitted to the Planning
Commission at the June 25'''.hearing. This shows how 3 FTIR systems (using
scanners which can measure in two.different directions)could adequately cover the
fenceline.
F) Provide an adequate.plan for automatically.tying into the community .warning
systems.
G) Include installation of Ultra-Violet(UV) equipment by July `97. .At that time,ETG's
system will have both UV and FTIavailable in one system. Once UV is installed,
any chemical better detected by the UV system will be monitored by this system, and
chemicals.better monitored by the FTIR and Lasair systems,will be monitored by
them.
IT) -Provide monthly,reports to the.County,the signatories,and the BAAQMD on the
emissions;:and provide any additional.fenceline monitoring data.requested by these
parties within 2 working days of the request.:
I) Provide modem access to the data for these parties.
J) Include adequate meteorological equipment, software for accidental release
protection, and siting for the equipment.
K) Show evidence that the system will provide the best available technology(as required
by the LUP(75.));at the earliest practicable date,and show evidence that the system
will be adequately maintained.
For the record, we.wish to correct mistatements:about our concerns made by Unocal
officials who joined the process late, and which have been repeated by others who took
the Unocal statements as fact. These Unocal officials have stated that the committee is
mainly concerned about ongoing low-level releases, and not concerned about large
accidental releases.. This is completely false.. The entire process that we have been
working toward for the,last year and a half is on early,warning for accidental releases. It
7
is true that we have also brought up the.concern about lower level releases,but this is a
secondary,though very serious.
Thank you for your consideration._ We the undersigned are the full fenceline monitor
committee except for Unocal. We are all either a signatory or a representatives of a
signatory of the Good Neighbor Agreement.
Sincerely; .
Lynn Cherry Jay Gunkelman Julia.May Andy Mechling
q9-In
8
F l0ML UVIX0CA L, 1�'rh �ir.l,illE1,1 T:w:!i +:-Ij.�r �.! �•. 1;••1,1.. J14.: ��i V. V�,i:,
ti.t: �:
% y 1 'r
I2Et: VE-S I, :FOR PROPOSAL ANIS.
S7"Al."ENTUN I' tali' QIIALIVI.CA'FIUN _
OPEN PATH.rEACELINE 1V,I.OM`I.RING
Background
Unocal; 76 Products Corripany,has entared into a Good Nei.gbbor. Agro-erneJit with the
C)-ocke:tt:/ltodeo'C.oali.tiosa; Sltareltria Environmental A.111ance (SEA), and the Citizens for .
a Better Environment(CBE) egarding its.Sari Frmciseo'}Z.eiiren. ne portion of the
agreement stipulates that an:improved Mr pollution monitorb)g.s 'stem mutuatly a rees�blt~,
to 0w si.g iatoHes of thr,agreement find the County shall be installed. T;Je desie fated
represaWaUves of the sisuatorics are to design a n)oriitorixig test program).. A.copy of the
applicable sectio»:of the Go'o-dNeigbbor Agreetnel�t is attached for. ref is
Url.ocal liar msip6d a ina1.]ager for tbi:s pioject,v.itosp i:esponsibilities include- overall
pro ee ajon.agernent, iwludiz).g-seheduling,Fippwva.l of invoices. and A- tra:work. `
facilitating fenccline.group Mewings,-bnplemewhig decisions.made by the group, and
providirig day-today interfam botweeri the group, the erwii-orlInenta.l nrorutoring
contractor, and the San Franr1jwo Refinery.
1.t is the oUjectim- of this project to mevt tho foIIowing goals:
Tile objectives ale to provide the following'
the ability to provide early notiBipation to the ,surrounding cx:,rnmunities of By).
ellAssion;
--42. the ability to monitor the niaximurn.z.i.umbcr of clwni.cals at the lowest reasonable
deteetioai.level., and tom.E r►sui:e and record that level not less than six times'Tv
lzoar,
the petxe)mtaon.of reports.oil the data collected;
A.., the ability to detennine,ontission.s not origutati»„ fzom the Unocal.refinery,
LONG:TERM GOALS
1, Dett-ailine the mwis mxnitision.rates,forspecific chc►nkalfi -
2. Dotermii:e the downu rid-.hiapacts of enii.skons
Identify sources of cmiskions
Proposal.Requirements
Proposal Will be on,a lunip.swn basis for the Scopo of.Work defi6ed below, For
additional work required on'a thn.e and.material basis, list the work catcgary; and.its
bi.11irlt; rate. Proposeli,must be submiticed on the attxched.Froposal Porm,
Proposals fzom contractors will be reviewed bY the rencelinfc- monitornig group. JYitrls
511braitting proposals may be selected.to mako qual.ifcation,l»:esentations io i1w f'Cmcnline
# mo>�it.exi.r,g group. The eon.tract:or must br able.to hesin».site evaI.uation work August 1,
Jade 7, 105, Kay.5
315" �'=^',nom
rBi1t' UNICDCA �r� �jX: ��CY l:lltirt%v. l�� �J ll�': :�; �,1. L , j(. ; O. 5v. l ti +
The contractor-Mll. provide the.`ollowing: .
1. Apt=to moul.tor the chemicals-on the attached list. The contractor shell evaluate the
list,"assess interference's between these chemicals,. water; CO2 ,and any other eheutieals
likely to be significant. TW;s plan should provide a list of priority chemicals,th.e basis for .
the priority assigned, as well as thenfvjmum detection;levels for each ell; cal
2. A test protocol to confirm stated instrument w3si.tivity,'accuracy and reliability;
eva.l.uato systain operation uridei:actual site apndi.tions with.a minimtur;path,length of 200
Meters' determine sensitivities to siting, structural and-meteorological conditiow;
determine system interference's and colicct actual.operation, maintenance and calibration'
data. Prepare and update project tim.el.ine, and.provi:de data dissemination options.
Identify unknown species detected du in.g.test.
--- 3. The system to be tested and xn be installed in the_final instal.Tation sltal.l,.tie based either.
on FUR technology or UV.remote sensi»g technology.
4. Design for reports to include;
♦ Monthly Daily-average concentration.
Monthly. 10 minute High.-Low concem.Tation.
Excursion Data.reports
o
Ad hoc report generation
5. A.lai.scussion of data format,delivery aitd security.options-and issues.
6. Provide data.iriterpretati.on tr6W)ig'for. sigriatones of the Good Neighbor
ASteezment`or their. designees.
Project beUverabl.es
Witbi.n four weeks affter executing a contract VdRh.Unocal £or this Project,the Contractor
must deliver eight copies of the.test plan to Unocal. The plan.must cover. all items
defined in.the Scope of Work. p to taro weeks will be allowed for review and approval.
of the plan prior to impletnentati.on.`
Site work is sr hedul.ed to begin by August 31., 1995.
Project deliverables will include a written}.final report that includes an.executive summary
anal a report of the findings w-id recornmendations. A.written interim.roportis duo by
November15, suntmari.zin arti.viti.es and findings to date.
3 Jure 7, 19951 iRM6
s zT
•...,;:.�.x.:_:�;, I',`1 t ___ �111 ddd� r (J
b
r, z
SI r �✓ f4 E�-F
gg
��
FI✓-- V �� y�L C- � - .yc
ggg
i.
Z,rVERrte• rte'„ a� }
v ';i w
4.h ��' �'•�_w �:+r�,.>..`-�.�i--.a���T .'X�c�-?�Yi�t"`}�'�T1�-,.'^".�� .2 a"
s3h rg�x.�c"�� s z 1�x --c•- ;s.:>:` _`.' 1. t� •-st$. t„s.-y
•
1 •
i
i
EKW
APPENDIX B
LASAIR FOR H2S MONITORING
(ALTERNATIVE TO FTIR)
R:\PUBS\PROPOSAU6940B54\000.APP June,1995
Description and Principle of Operation
The LASAIR is a simple,compact,feild-portable instrument the species,listed in the table below by a simple replacement.
which can provide highly specific:real-time measurements of the diode laser.Detection limits depends on the target
of selected gases.suitable for perimeter.long-path. point species,the laser beam path length and on the response
source.vehicle exhaust and ambient monitoring. required.Detection limits will decrease(sensitivity increase)
With the square root of response time.The system measures. .
The LASAIR.measures_the absorption of infrared radiation the product of the pathlength times the concentration.If the
from a low powered diode laser similar to those used in CD path length is_known,the average concentration over the
players and Laser printers.The measurement is completely _beam is obtained.
free from interference from ocher gases and is automatically
calibrated. simultaneous measurements.of more than one gaseous
species,can be.pcovided.if desired,by a relatively simple
Two versions of the Instrument are offered:. multiplexing arrangement:
LASAIR-R for long path remote sensing.The Wei-beam is
transmitted by a small telescope to a distant retroreflector Table:Species measured with LASAIR .
'which reflects it back to the iastrurncnt.
Wave
Species Remote Point.Monitor
LASAIR-P for point source monitoring:The gas is sampled monitor 12 m 50 m*
into a multipath cell with a total pathlenght of 12 meters(50 ttn .
meters optional).Reduced pressure operation provides fast ( myari) ( bv) ( bv)
aosponse(0.1 sec.)and good sensitivity(ppbv levels or less) NO2 0.8 25 40 I
in a compact unit_ HF 1.33 0.05 0.2 0.01 . .
HBr 1.341 X50 80 3
'Applications H2O 1.365 0.2 0.5 0.02
lu 1.541 2.5 7 0.3. ..
Buildings.storage rooms,chemical plants,landfills,mines
and for the monitoring of cmmisgions build up in a closed NH3 1.544 5 lb, 1
space. C2H2 1.55 __ 50 15 1
H2S ' 1.578 '15- 45 2
Vehicle exhaust in parking lots,airfields,roads. HCI 1.747 0.1 0.25 0.01
Plant perirneter monitoring.The beam can.be set up around CO 1:579. _ 50 80 1
the perimeter of the plact with a mirror arrangement_ CO2 1.579 50 80 . 1
CH4 1.651_.. 2. -5 .' 0.02 -
Measured Species NO 1.847. 50- 80 3
The LASAIR is supplied with a fully char•actcrizcd laser, .
selected for the species of interest but can measureeach of *Optional 50 meter path cell with I inintite averaging time
LASAIR Specifications Physical Specifications:
Wt.(Kg) Size(cm)
Detection miu sub-ppbv(>loom-ambient) LASAIR-R
Li
10,- 100 ug/ms(2m-stack) Telescope 5 50(L)X40(H)X20(W) .
Dynamic Range: 4 orders of magnitude Retroreflector 1 8(Dia)X6(D)
Path Length: 1- 1000 in LASAIR-P i
Response Time: ' Typically I second 12 in cell . 8 40(L)X15(H)X15(W)
Calibration: Internal reference requires Electronics(all versions): j
periodic standardization 6 35(L)Xl4(H)X45(W)
Output: Continuous Analog Tripods(optional): 18
4-20 mA or 0.2V Power: I I0/240VAC.50%60 Hz. 100.watts
1/O:RS-232,Parallel,TTL Options:Auto-Alignment.Tripods,Calibration Sources,
Temp.Range: 0 to 45°C Battery Pack
Thermo Environmental
IASAIR
New Diode Laser Technology
.��-!�.•
- �!+'•�� `�R7$i�!�`w'Y RN" µ`!�ZY��4'an'uy�i.#.I.'!.4"�,w�:i!gc�Lf.�. .s� ,^��' � Y �� h��.i•,•���(.�� .. .
'v'�w� + ����""'"','.,"�Nt�..""---w.aw^'.+� �+ :•ra.R.��^w�,.:� �a`I�:....... �w.�v..:'::d. '�
14. i • '.�anw tM.wWri .Ntl....�1.w+.wiaw.f4i...Ye:yn ..1w'N�.�I•.y(���•'��.��tyyµ'w: r V4 ��
.Y•w � 9;:. M.w. �(.i .•:�.wr..rij..
• L.•� }y,A^..vw�^,•SIM. .nH:'waH•w M.�.eY.n...r.. iL'R .. �
• �'1. .F��:...y........ Mmew..M.w:,...-�.,..,+..w..-a��+�"-�..�!ww......•Cy!.�Fr�.4
..rny,�`'� `�.�u+•a�•"'.r'�::.ij�"'�'wM:•.a�aw."",a' .sw'.c:��^+•��iwY.. �`f;.w
.. • y .e�x.rb Mty.y'�•. �y,..>,.,__... ...'^eso"+....�+t s.... .c. k .'^`H "'."'•».+.., Ky�ii '
a.'� t.yW.'y:...w... .a:•.w.na
Ip4�w.ii j�iwnatiYh; �<�.FwM.AWY w••'w•Yd>I.M�V•.�,. '••��!^0.4�i�Yywt
�w-.i.' ���� a '.nM.I..fl..w.•»,•y.y ti.www aIiMMYI.gn '•^•!-`�• �f,�
N:11M.��Y.l"�.��YV �,wi..� +W.:rww/�• w»M.•MF.��->'+�Ri.•w a��..±� �..�.
' ►M ...."�.r.r��.. w.�►.,...,""':""=r+,�-�+c�.�:•.4+,:n.,,"'_"t•.,:.w-..:�'i�"G"'"�cr.i.. iai
,.nw.,1
'�.ns.. ':1'Y.n. ,.we:4wy�.: . "`i'•^_„-s �iQ "� w•lq-w�ifil a�'.�.• _
4
4
. .a++rtilx.er.w. �....p w+u...�`s`*w.�i.wWawrc •.'...b+oy+.�rtw�w.v.n• : !� .
i...:.w+.-+nrea�a.+�ia...�.. w4"`•'a _ M...�...w'•�•aytlw�w•er�'.'..nw.rrw..r-.ti+.vn.•�i=� '
�Y� N....�ya•�'�••R�a��•�Ylw��lk�hM1yyiw�j.•i?N�-�•�••."�..y4w�iw.•V1.aww.� y,Y :rr •
.. ZZM ..F:......y,•....+.w
_ + .."w++�-w�.r..:.o✓r.c.«`�x,,"�.:sy,ra,•.+�,.w,.-'a�....^.w+.�,�w..w' �. w*+.v+..��
'erM-..'^" ��d�K Y.�e.+y„�,v.:n,".'�'�"""..sr""."'^'m�• w� �+wr�.x• ,
For:Measurement of Gases Such'as
NO' NO, NH3, HF, HI, CO, COZ, CH4, C2H2, H2S, Hz0
" I
Long.Path and Monitor
- j
Features
I
• Unequivocal identification of target gas • Path lenghts up to kilometers
• No interference from other gases • Simple automatic opertation
• High sensitivity Time response: from 0.i• sec.
• Small; portable, and easy to use • Multiple-target capability with auto
• Self-Calibrating Auto-alignment option
FROM UNOCAL SFR REFINERY (THU) 06. O8' 95 09:53/ST. 09: 15/N0. 3560734541 P 1/11
IFAX
[Date June 8, 1995
Number of pVqs including cover sheet 11
TO: Julia May/CBE CC:
FROM: M Lew
► � Unocal- SFR
1380 San Pablo Ave.
Rodeo, CA 94572
Phone (415) 243-8373
Fax Phone (415)243-8980 Phone (510)245-4549
Fax Phone (519)245-4476
REMARKS: ® Urgent ® For your review M Reply ASAP M Please Comment
Please discard the earlier revision document I sent you day before yesterday. There are
changes prompted by the Corporate purchasing. Most deal with commercial issues. However I
have changed dates and the wording of the early warning section of the proposal requirements
to be more in keeping with my understanding of our telephone discussion last Tuesday. I will
send this fax out to as many of the fenceline monitoring group as I have fax numbers for.
Thanks for your help.
FROM UNOCAL SFA REFINERY (THU) 06. 08' 95 09:53/ST. 09: 15/N0. 3560734541 P 2/11
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND
STATEMENT OF QUALMCATION
OPEN PATH FENCELINE MONITORING
Background
Unocal, 76 Products Company,has entered into a Good Neighbor Agreement with the
Crockett/Rodeo Coalition, Shoreline Environmental Alliance(SEA),and the Citizens for
a Better Environment(CBE)regarding its San Francisco Refinery. One portion of the
agreement stipulates that an improved aiz pollution monitoring system mutually agreeable
to the signatories of the agreement and the County shall be installed-The designated
representatives of the signatories are to design a monitoring test program. A copy of the
applicable sectiori of the Good Neighbor Agreement is attached for reference.
Unocal has assigned a manager for this project,whose responsibilities include overall
project management, including scheduling, approval of invoices, and tetra work,
facilitating fenceline group meetings, implementing decisions made by the group, and
providing day-to-day interface between the group,the environmental monitoring
contractor, and the San Francisco Refinery.
It is the objective of this project to meet the following goals:
The objectives are to provide the following:
1. the ability to provide early notification to the surrounding communities of an
emission. -
2. the ability to monitor the maximum number of chemicals at the lowest reasonable
detection level,and to measure and record that level not less than six times per
hour.
3. the generation of reports on the data collected.
.4- the ability to determine emissions not originating from the Unocal refinery.
LONG TERM GOALS
1. Determine the mass emission rates for specific chemicals
2. Determine the downwind impacts of emissions
3. Identify sources of emissions
Proposal Requirements
Proposal will be on a lump sum basis for the Scope of Work defined below. For
additional work required on a time and material basis, list the work category, and its
billing rate. Proposals must be submitted on the attached Proposal Form.
Proposals from contractors will be reviewed by the fenceline monitoring group. Fixins
submitting proposals may be selected to make qualification presentations to the fenceline
monitoring group. The contractor must be able to begin site evaluation.work August 1,
lune 7, 1995,Rev. 5
FROM UNOCAL SFA REFINERY MU) 06. 08' 95 09:53/ST. 09: 15/NO. 3560734541 P 3/11
1.995 or such other date as the fenceline monitoring group deems appropriate. The
contractor should also provide a schedule indicating the project milestones.
Unocal and the feneeline monitoring group reserve the right to reject any and all
proposals. The contract will be awarded by the fenceline monitoring group and Unocal to
the best qualified bidder,offering the best overall value, although not necessarily
the low bidder.
Six copies of the completed proposal form should be provided without item one included.
Two copies of cost information(Item one), should be provided in a separate envelope and
marked as"Cost Information".
Proposals, including cost information must be received at Unocal San Francisco Refinery
by close of business (3:30PM PAST)June 27, 1995.
Before a contract or purchase order for this work can be issued by the San Francisco
Refinery, the Contractor must be pre-qualified as an onsite contractor. Please review the
attached mandatory requirement forms/doeunoents and respond as requested:
1) CPI(contractor prequalification information) Form. Please complete and
return with proposal.
2) Terms and conditions. Agreement must be reached on Terms and
Conditions with Unocal.
3) Provide Certificates of Insurance listing Union Oil Company of California
(d.b.a. Unocal) as additional insured, for the type and amounts of
insurance listed_
4) Letter of Agreement(confidentiality agreement). Complete and return..
5) Contractor Appendix. Review and keep.
Scope of Work -
The contractor will prepare and execute a plan to monitor fenceline emissions and
evaluate the performance of the monitoring equipment recommended by the contractor,
and approved by the fenceline monitoring group. The contractor will use the results of the
evaluation to prepare a report on its findings,a recommendation for selection and siting
of the monitoring equipment, and an engineering and procurement package. The
contractor will be responsible to provide, operate and maintain any and all equipment
needed for the test. Siting of the equipment will be determined by the contractor,wn the
approval of the fenceline monitoring group. Emissions monitoring will be done in at least
two different sites within the plant_ Utilities shall be the responsibility of the contractor.
Where economically feasible, electrical power will be provided by the refinery.
2 lune 7, 1995, Rev. 5
FROM UNOCAL SFR REFINERY (THU)06. 08' 95 09:54/ST. 09: 15/NO. 3560734541 P 4/11
The contractor will provide the following:
I. A.plan to monitor the chemicals on the attached list. The contractor shall evaluate the
list, assess interference's between these chemicals, water, CO2,and any other chemicals
likely to be significant.This plan should provide a list of priority chemicals, the basis for
the priority assigned,as well as the minimum detection levels for each chemical-
2. A
hemical_2. .A.test protocol to confirm stated instrument sensitivity, accuracy and reliability;
evaluate system operation under actual site conditions with a minimum path length of 200
Meters; determine sensitivities to siting, structural and meteorological conditions;
determine system interference's and collect actual operation, maintenance and calibration
data. Prepare and update project timeline, and provide data dissemination options.
Identify unknown species detected during test.
3. The system to be tested and to be installed in the final installation shall be based either
on FTJR technology or UV remote sensing technology.
4. Design for reports to include
♦ Monthly Daily average concentration
♦ Monthly 10 minute High-Low concentration
♦ Excursion Data reports
♦ Ad hoc report generation
5. A Discussion of data format, delivery and security options and issues.
6_ Provide data interpretation training for signatories of the Good Neighbor
Agreement or their designees.
Project Deliverables
Within four weeks after executing a contract with Unocal for this Project, the Contractor
roust deliver eight copies of the test plan to Unocal. The plan must cover all items
defined in the Scope of Work. Up to two weeks will be allowed for review and approval
of the plan prior to implementation.
j Site work is scheduled to begin by August 31, 1995.
Project deliverables will include a written final report that includes an executive summary
and a report of the findings and recommendations. A written interim report is due by
November 15, summarizing activities and findings to date.
3 June 7, 1995,Rev.5
FROM UNOCAL SFR REFINERY (THU) 06. 08' 95 09:54/ST. 09: 15/NO. 3560734541 P 5/11
Unocal will be provided and will retain ownership of all procedures,reports, data,
memorandums and other work products from this project. All deliverables will be
provided to the Unocal Project Manager.
The Contractor will meet periodically, no less than monthly,during the project with the
Unocal Project Manager, Refinery staff and the fenceline monitoring group to review
project progress and status.
The Contractor will hold a closing conference with the Refinery Management and the
fenceline monitoring group on the last day of the project to discuss the project results.
The final report will be due to the Unocal Project Manager at the closing conference, not
later than March 1, 1996.
Proposals should include a four-hour meeting with the fenceline monitoring group to be
held approximately two weeks after the submission of the final report in order for the
contractor to review the report and results with the fenceline monitoring group and
Unocal. This meeting will be held at San Francisco Refinery, and will be scheduled at
the convenience of Unocal,the Contractor and the fenceline monitoring group.
Provide engineering and construction package suitable for, and provide procurement and
construction cost estimate for the permanent system suitable to provide early warning
data to the areas identified. This should be provided 6 weeks after the final report-is.
submitted. The permanent system needs to be completed in time to be fully operational at
the earliest practical date, but not later than.November 1, 1996. This package should
provide.for the following:
Use EPA Guidance Document--indicate proposed deviations
Prepare and update project timeline, indicating critical path
Provide proposal for ongoing operation/service of installation
Provide operation/maintenance training.
The test program should start by August 1, 1995. if this date is not achievable indicate
the earliest start date.
Qualifications
Proposals must detail the number of hours allotted to each category of work to complete
the Scope of Work.
Proposals must include names and resurnes for principal team members. Discussion of
team member's qualifications should include registrations, certifications,previous work
4 June 7, 1995,Rev.5
FROM UNOCAL SFR REFINERY (THU) 06. 08' 95 09: 55/ST. 09: 15/NO. 3560734541 P 6/11
history and specialized training and experience. Proposals should include references for
similar work completed for clients in the petroleum or related industry.
Proposals should include samples of final reports that cover elements of the scope of
work as defined in this document.
Work Requirements
The contractor will satisfy the requirements of Contract Appendix-Requirement for
Contractors(attached)
All personnel must complete Refinery Safety Orientation.Training prior to beginning
work in the Refinery.
Contractor will remove from the project at Unocal's request any employee of the
Contractor who, in the opinion of Unocal, is incompetent, disorderly, or otherwise
unsatisfactory.
Subcontractors used by the contractor must be qualified and approved by UNOCAL.
All work at the Refinery will be performed, Monday through Friday, during regular
administrative work hours(7:00 a.m.to 3:30 p.m.)unless other arrangements have been
approved in advance by the Unocal Project manager.
Contractor personnel will be escorted by qualified Unocal personnel at all times while in
process areas of the Refinery.Nomex clothing, hard hats,protective eye wear(including
goggles in some areas),hearing protection and safety shoes are required in specified areas
of the Refinery and are to be provided by the Contractor_ Other personal protective
equipment, such as ear plugs, will be provided by the refinery as needed.
Contractor must be prepared to bring all necessary work materials to the Refinery.
5 June 7, J 995,Rev. 5
FROM UNOCAL SFR REFINERY (THU)06. 08' 95 09:55M. 09: 100- 3560734541 P 7/11
PROPOSAL FORM
Bids shall be submitted in the following form and wording:
1.0 Ow lump sum price to perform the work associated with the San.Francisco
Refinery Fence Line Monitor Test Program.is:
The breakdown of this lump sum price is as follows:
ITEM PRICING
Labor
Materials
Travel
6 June 7, 1995, Rev. 5
FROM UNOCAL SFR REFINERY (THU) O6. O8' 95 O9:55/ST. 09: 1510. 3560734541 P 8/11
2.0 Included in these lump sura prices are any costs associated with the following bid
addenda(list by number):
3.0 Alternate bids,if any, may be attached. If alternates are proposed,please be specific.
4.0 We have reviewed the required schedule information,for this work and have
submitted a timeline showing the project components and milestones.
5.0 List estimated hours for each Contractor employee for Scope of Work and Extra
Work billable rates. (May be attached.) Example:
Name Work Category Billable Hours
Assignment Rate
Attach resumes, and other requested information for these personnel.
Labor for any approved extra work after the delivery of all deliverables and final meeting
to discuss report results, will be billed at these rates. There will be no mark-up over cost
for additional travel expenses-
7 lune 7, 1995,Rev.5
FROM UNOCAL SFR REFINERY (THU)06. 08' 95 09:56/ST. 09: l5/N0. 3560734541 P 9/11
6.0 Equipment for any approved extra work will be billed at the following rate-
Equipment Rate
7.0 All bid prices and extra work rates are f nn until
(date)
8.0 We have reviewed the Contractor's Appendix presented in this bid invitation and
agree to comply with the requirements 1lerein..
$ June 7, 1995, Rev. 5
FROM UNOCAL SFR REFINERY (THU)06. 08, 95 09:56/ST. 09: 15/NO1560734541 P 10/11
9.0 We have reviewed the mandatory requirements as presented under Proposal
Requirements in the Request for Proposal and Statement of Qualifications. Following is
our status related to these requirements:
(Check one)
Completed and included with Previously completed and
this proposal. currently on file with
Unocal's San Francisco
Refinery.
LCONTRACTOR
PREQUALIFICATION
INFORMATION
2. CERTIFICATE OF
INSURANCE
3. LETTER OF I
AGREEMENT
11.0 Identify all contractor relationships and associations with the following
organizations and their personnel: 1)Unocal; 2)the Crockett/Rodeo Coalition-, 3)
Shorerme Environmental Alliance; 4)Citizens for a Better Environment. (Attachon a
separate sheet if necessary.)
12.0 In addition to the data provided herein, attach any considerations that may affect
this proposal evaluation or coati-act
General: All of the above data will be used to evaluate the bids- Unocal reserves the
right to reject any and all bids and to not award the contract. Unocal also reserves the
right to terminate this contract at any time.
This proposal is dated the of-, 1995
(month)
by of
(Officer) (Company)
California Contractor's Licenseff
9 June 7, 1995,Rev. 5
FROM UNOCAL SFR REFINERY 09:56/ST. 09: 15/NO. 356073454I P 11/11
CHEMICALS
ACETALDEHYDE
BENZENE
FORMALDEHYDE
NAPHTHALENE
TOLUENE
XYLENE
PHENOL
PAII—B==(a)"tbraccnc,Bem(b)fluomndiene,Sc=(k)furanthem,
H2S
sox
NOx
HYDROGEN CYANIDE
CARBONYL SULFIDE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLORINE DIOXIDE
PHOSGENE
NICKEL CARBONYL
1,3 BUTADIENE
ETHYL BENZENE
HCl
DIOXINS
FURANS
AMMONIA
CHLORINE
MTBE
TRICHLOROETHANE
DIMETHYL SULFIDE
METHYL MERCAPTANS
ETHYL MERCAPTANS
C14RYSENE
PYRENE
CO
1-BUTENE
CRESOLS
ACENAPHTHALENE
ANTHRACENE
FLUORANTiMNE
FLUORENE
METHANOLAMINE
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
I ETHANOLAMINES
PCB's
10 June 7, 1995,Rev. 5
Environmental Technologies Group, Inc.
Electro-Optics Systems Division
FTIR REMOTE SENSOR LOWER DETECTION LIMITS
Note: open path FTIR gas lower detection limits are a function of the signal-to-noise ratio .
in the spectral region of analysis on every. measurement.- Hence, lower detection limits
s 'vary from measurement to measurement and are real time functions of your site
conditions.and instrument.performance. The following table "of optimum lower detection
limits should be used only as a best case guide. Open path FTIR instruments should
f provide operators With teal time lower detection limits. as part of standard software
features.
' Under: optimum conditions, the following LDL's can be achieved.. Path integrated'concenlrations are for
100.meter path length from FTIR to re troreflector,(200 meters roundirip distance).
Path..integrated Path Averaged
Concentration : Concentration
Compound Name PPM-M PPB
Acetaldehyde 0.61 3.0
Acetic Acid, monomer 1.4. 7.0
Acetone -2.9 14.5
Acetonotrile 13 65
Acetl Chloride0.67 3.35
Acetylene0.77 3.85
Acrolein 085 4.25 .
Acrylic Acid '0.46. . 2.3.
Acrylonitrile 1.5 7.5 .
s Ammonia 0.20. 1.0
Aniline . 3.9 19.5
Arsine i.7 8.5
Benzene 3.4 17
Bis-dichloroethylether• 0.70 3.5
Boron Trichloride 0.20 ; 1.0
Bromom6thane 8.2 41
Butadierie 0.93 4.65
n-Butane 2.1 10.5
2-Butanone 2.1 17 ,
Catbon Disulfide 3.4 100
Carbon Monoxide .1.3 6.5 ,
Carbon Tetrachloride 0:23 1.15
Carbon Tetrafluotide 2 1.0
Carbonyl Sulfide :48. 2.4
° Chlorobehz'ene 1.5 . 7.5'
Y
a
Chlorodifluoromethane. 0:21 - 1.05
x
z.
Chloroethane 2.0 10
? Chloroform. 0.25 1:25
Chloromethane 9.4 47
Chloeotrifluoro,methane 0.60 3.0
Crotonaldehyde 0.76 3.8
'a Cyclohexane 0.20 1.0
Cyclohexene 0.71 3.55.'
Cyclopentene 1.3 6.5
Cyclopropane 2.0 10
1,2 Dibromoethane 2.3 11.5.
m-Dichlorobenzene 1.2 6
o-Dichlorobenzene. 0.94 47
3 Dicblorodifluoromethane 0.20 1.0.
1 1.,1 Dichloroethane 1.1 5.5
y 1,2 Dichloroethane ' 7.3 36.5
1,1 Dichloroethane 0.68 3.4
1,2 Dichloroethene 2.0 10
> ;
Dichloromethane 1.3 6.5.
1,2 Dichlorotetrafluorethane 0.20 1.0
Diethyl Ether 0.26 1.3 ,
Dimethylamine 0.73 3.65
Dimethyl.Ether. 0.91 4:55
t 1,1 Dimethyl Hydrazine 0.35 1.75 .
Dimethyl Sulfide 1..3 6.5
: Ethane 1.6 8 -
Ethanol 0.89 4.45
Ethyl Benzene 3.4 17
.`' Ethylene 0.64 3.2
Ethylene Oxide 1.1 5.5
7'N Ethyl Vinyl Ether 1.2 6.0
Fluorobenzene 1.7 8.5
.y Formaldehyde 0.45 2:25
'Formic Acid, Monomer 0.78 .3.9 ..
r_f Furan 1.1 5.5
a... n-Hexane. 0.45 2.25
"E HydrogLin.Bromide 1.2. 6.0
! Hydrogen Chloride 0.61 3.05
.,
Hydrogen Cyanide 6.8 34
-
#;-:L Hydrogen Fluoride 0.2 1.0
Hydrogen Sulfide 450. 2250
Isobutane 0.74 3.7
Isobutanol 0.34 1.7
Isobutylerie0.41 . 2.05
Isoctane 0.59. 2.95
Isoprene 0.45 2.25
t Isopropanol 1.1 5.5
Mesitylene 0.92 4.6
Methane 3.5 17.5
Methanol 0.41 ° 2.05
Methyl Acetate 0.80 4.0
Methyl Acrylate 0.66. 3.3
Methylamine 2.9 14.5
^ . 2-Methyl 2-Butene 4.7 23.5
3-Methyl 1-Butene 1.6 8.0
Methyl Formate 1.5 7.5
z Methyl Methacrylate 0.65 3.25
Methyl Nitrite 0.66 3.3
2-Methyl Pentane 1.1 5.5
3-Methyl Pentane 0.60 3.0
2-Methyl 1-Pentene 1.7 8.5
2-Methyl.2-Pentene 0.90 4.5
4-Methyl 2-Pentene 1.2 6.0
Methyl Vinyl Ether 1.4 7.0
Methyl Vinyl Ketone 1`.9 9,5
Nitric Acid -0.63 3.15
:z Nitric Acid 23 '115
Nitro Benzene 1.3 6.5
' Nitro Ethane 3.0 15
Nitrogen Dioxide 2.9 14.5
Nitro Methane 8.1 45
Nitrous Acid 0.22 1.1
Nitrous Oxide 1.9 9.5
Octane 0.25 1.25
Ozone 0.65 3.25
n-Pehtane 0.85. 4.25-
1-Pentene
.25`1-Pentene 1.0 5.0
2-Pentene 1.5 7.5
trans-3-Pentene nitrile 0.59 2.95
Phosgene 0.20 1.0
Phosphine 2.7 13.5
Propane 1.9 9.5
Propionaldehyde 0.49 2.45
Propionic Acid 2.2 1.1
(° Propylene 1.4 7
Propylene Oxide 2.2 11
Styrene 1.2. 6
Sulfur.Dioxide 4:5 22.5
Sulfur Hexafluoride 0.2 1.0
1,1,1,2 Tetrachloroethane 0.38 1.9
€ 1;1,1,2 Tetrachloroethane 40 200
Tetrachloroethene 0.20 . 1.0
Tetrahydrothiophene 0.89 "
4,45.
Toluene 3.4 17
k 1,1,1 Trichloroethane 0.55 2,75
1,1,2 Trichloroethane 1.4 7.0
Trichloroethene 0.23 1.15
4` Trichlorofluormethane 020 1.0
Trochlorotritluoroetharie 0.20 1.0
Vinyl Acetate 075 - 3.75
Y`
Vinyl Chloride 1.6 8
Vinylidene Chloride 0.69: 3.45
" m-Xylene 1.5 7.5
t o-Xylene 2:7 13.5
p-Xylene 1.4 7.0
i
u.
ON i RH COST
PRODUCTS COMPANY
JCW-201-96
46 AUG -8 PM 2= 43
Y
DEVELOPHDIT DEPT
August 6, 1996 GeneR a Y MC.n W lel K E S
San Francisco Refinery
Mr. Harvey E. Bragdon
Contra Costa County Planning Department
Community Development
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Bragdon:
REFORMULATED GASOLINE PROJECT
LAND USE PERMIT 2038-93
Response.to Appeal dated 7/25/95
Unocal supports the Zoning Administrator's July 15, 1996 decision regarding fenceline
monitoring. We are moving forward in meeting the Zoning Administrator's
requirements for compliance-with the fenceline monitoring permit condition.
Following is a brief summary of Unocal's progress. Please be aware that we are.also
preparing a detailed response addressing the specific complaints made in the appeal.
Contrary to statements made in the appeal, the Zoning Administrator's decision
actually expedites the implementation of a fenceline monitoring system; allowing for
fenceline monitoring almost three months prior to the permit deadline for installation of
z fenceline monitoring system by November 1, 1996. Both the temporary system and
the interim system are the same technology and from the same manufacturer as that
used in the working group's six-month test program and requested by the appellants
during the Annual Compliance Hearing.
Unocal is not attempting to delay the process, as stated in the appeal. We are actively
progressing with installation of both the temporary and interim fenceline monitoring
equipment as required by the County.
1380 San Pablo Avenue
Rodeu. California 94b72-129--
PH (510) 245-4415
A U n o c a I C o n p a n y
Mr. Harvey E. Bragdon JCW-201-96
August 6, 1996
Page 2
CBE's FTIR system was put in service by Unocal within two days of receipt, as
required. Unocal contracted with a third-party firm, RSA, Inc., to operate and
maintain the FTIR equipment. According to RSA, the equipment from CBE is not
working properly. Both ETG (the FTIR equipment manufacturer) and CBE have
determined that the equipment needs to be returned to ETG for repair. To provide
continued monitoring, Unocal has proceeded to obtain FTIR equipment that is available
on short-term loan from RSA. RSA's equipment has been air-shipped to Unocal and is
expected to be operational by August 7, 1996..
Unocal has also purchased FTIR equipment from ETG for the interim fenceline
monitoring system, and expects to start up that system by September 5, 1996 in
accordance with the Zoning Administrator's requirement. On July 25, 1996, as
required, Unocal submitted a letter to the County outlining how the interim FTIR
system would be installed and operated.
As we have indicated in previous submittals and during the Annual Compliance
Hearing, Unocal wants to provide the community with the most appropriate detection
system along the fenceline. We intend to continue working with the community and
the working group members to improve the final fenceline monitoring system. In the
meantime, a fenceline monitoring system will be continuously operating at the Refinery
until the final design is approved and installed, providing a continuum of monitoring
along the fenceline.
In summary, Unocal believes that the Zoning Administrator's-decision should be
upheld. The appeal is unwarranted and should be denied. Unocal supports the County
staff decision, and is moving forward with compliance requirements imposed by the
County during the Annual Compliance Hearing.
Sincerely,
JCW/abs
cc: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County Planning Commission
C. O. Kutsuris
D. Barry
D. R. Sanderson
E. Zell
M. A. Smith
N. E. Poloske
R. O. Rittenberg
ATTACHMENT"D'9
PRODUCTS COMPANY
JCW
-233-96
96 SEP 17 AM 11: 24
September 12 1996 JEFFREY C. WAKES
1� General Manager
San Francisco Refinery
Mr. Harvey Bragdon
Contra Costa County Planning Department
Director, Community Development
651 Pine Street
North Wing, Fourth Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Bragdon,
REFORMULATED GASOLINE PROJECT
LAND USE PERMIT 2038-93
Cond. #75 - Fenceline Monitoring
In our continuing effort to keep the County informed on the fenceline monitoring project,
following is the status of the interim system.
Unocal's purchased FTIR system was in place and fully operational along the refinery's northern
and southern fencelines by August 30, 1996, almost one week prior to the September 5 deadline
for operation of the interim system imposed by the County. Our contractor, Terra Air, continues
to operate the system at the refinery.
We are also pleased to inform you that we had our second meeting yesterday with the fenceline
monitoring working group and GNA signatories in an effort to reach agreement on a final
system. We feel we are making excellent progress, and have another meeting scheduled for
September 26, 1996. In the meantime, Unocal and Julia May of CBE plan to meet with the
County Health Services Department to discuss details regarding appropriate notification levels
for certain monitored chemicals. If you would like further information, please contact Rick
Rittenberg at (510) 245-4436.
Sincerely, -
ROR/1
/�/
cc: GNA Signatories
Fenceline Monitoring Working Group
N. E. Poloske
R. O. Rittenberg
M. A. Smith
13B San Pablo Avenue
C. O. Kutsuris
Rodeo, California 94572-1299
D. R. Sanderson PH (5 10) 245-4415
CCC Planning Commissioners A u n o c a I C o m p a n y
CCC Board of Supervisors
Randy Sawyer
This Page Left
Intentionally Blank
ATTACHMENT "E"
'6 PRODUCTS COMPANY
JCW-228-96
9
6 SEPI ! PH 4: 29
C ;.T;y
°vELc�,-��f�plrll EP
JEFFREY C. WILKES
General Manager
September 6, 1996
San Francisco Refinery
Mr. Harvey Bragdon
Director, Community Development
Contra Costa County Planning Department
651 Pine Street,North Wing, Fourth Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Bragdon:
REFORMULATED GASOLINE PROJECT
LAND USE PERMIT 2038-93
Cond. # 75 - Fenceline Monitoring
I am pleased to report that Unocal,the other members of the Fenceline Monitoring
Working Group, and the Good Neighbor Agreement(GNA) Signatories met on Tuesday,
September 3, 1996,to work towards finalizing the fenceline monitoring system design.
An attendance list is attached. Only Mr. Michael Belliveau,the GNA Signatory for CBE,
was unable to attend.
Attendees agreed that excellent progress was made at this meeting. Unocal offered the
following enhancements for the FTIR system currently operating along the northern and
southern fencelines:
1. Extend the path length to as much as 1 kilometer(current path lengths are .
approximately 200 meters),utilizing larger retroreflectors which are available from
ETG,the FTIR equipment manufacturer.
2. Add a second,optical remote sensing technology along the same paths as the FTIR in
order to provide monitoring capability for hydrogen sulfide, an acutely hazardous
material not detected by the FTIR technology.
1380 San Pablo Avenue
Rodeo, California 94572-1299
PH (510) 245-4415
A U n o c a l C o m p a n y
Mr. Harvey Bragdon JCW-228-96
September 6, 1996
Page 2
Response to the above was positive. Unocal and other working group members are now
researching information needed to answer some of the questions that came up during the
meeting. The next meeting was scheduled for September 11, 1996.
If you would like further information,please contact Mr. Rick Rittenberg at(510)245-
4436. Unocal will continue to update you on progress toward final design of the
fenceline monitoring system.
Sincerel
JCW/abs
Attachment
cc: GNA Signatories
Fenceline Monitoring Working Group
N. E. Poloske
R. O. Rittenberg
M. A Smith
C. O. Kutsuris
D. R. Sanderson
CCC Planning Commissioners
CCC Board of Supervisors
�c s ��� U41ai oa�
LU
W W W
t
xxz 0; h—� C
h O in iA in
4 �'.'___.... ....C...�'.} CFF
pon Gia r-o V�M C 8 L-1
rcNvn
�i•G� /L,'-I-Vie.».�-�� �r�ac��, � -
f
j�
I
i !
This Page Left
Intentionally Blank
IF
9/27/97
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
Dear Members of the Board,
We are writing to ask for a continuance of the Board of Supervisors' hearing scheduled for October 1, of
our appeal of Unocal's Land Use Permit. Our committee(the Fenceline Monitor Committee)is in
negotiations with Unocal. Although we still have major hurdles to overcome,we have made significant
progress and would like to give our negotiations every chance to succeed. If they do succeed, we will be
able to withdraw our appeal.
Unocal has indicated to us that they have no objection to us asking for a continuance of the hearing. In fact,
Unocal has indicated a preference for a continuance to a period two weeks after the Oct. I date, rather than
only ont.week later,
Please let us know if you need more information or wish to discuss this. Julia May is generally available at
the CBE office as a contact person. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lynn Cherry Jay Gunkelman Julia May Andy Mechling
OOUk)SeL)
�p�
SEP--30 96 07:46 FROM:76 PRODUCTS COMPANY 510-245-4566
TO:93351913
PRGE:02
PRODUCTS COMPANY
JCW-248-96
JiFfREV Cti, . WILKES
September 27, 1996
Mr. Harvey Bragdon, Director
Community Development
Contra Costa County Planning Department
651 Pipe Street
North Wing, Fourth Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Bragdon:
Reformulated Gasoline Project
Land Use Permit 2038-93
Condition #75 - Eencelijac Monitoring
Members of the Fenceline Monitoring Working Group filed an appeal to the decision made by
the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on August 27, 1996. Unocal understands that
the appellants have asked for a continuation of the scheduled hearing (October 1, 1996) on that
appeal. Unocal concurs with the request for continuation.
Sincerely,
JCW/abs
cc, GNA Signatories
Fenceline Monitoring Working Group
N. E. Poloske
R. 0.1 Ritteriberp
M. A. Smith
C. 0. Kutsuris
D. R. Sanderson 12:0 S.-,[IEmla 7.j.1
CCC planning Commissioners .; I J, 4 4
CCC Board of Supervisors U � Z
, ; rr- P.
9/27/97
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
Dear Members of the Board,
We are writing to ask for a wntinuance ofthe Board of Supervisors' hearing scheduled for October 1, of
our appeal of Unocal's Land Use Permit. Our committee(the Fenceline Monitor Committee)is in
negotiations with Unocal. Although we still have major hurdles to overcome,we have made significant
progress and would like to give our negotiations every chance to succeed. if they do succeed, we will be
able to withdraw our appeal.
Unocal has indicated to us that they have no objection to us asking for a continuance of the hearing. In fact,
Unocal has indicated a preference for a continuance to a period two weeks after the Oct. I date, rather than
only one week later,
Please let us know if you need more information or wish to discuss this. Julia May is generally available at
the CBE office as a contact person. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lynn Cherry Jay Gunkelman Julia May Andy Mechling
u 0,.,ou�as e;L-)
�p�