Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10151996 - D8 D.8 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on October 15, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, DeSaulnier, and Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Torlakson ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: APPEAL REGARDING UNOCAL'S COMPLIANCE WITH LAND USE PERMIT CONDITION 75. This is the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for the hearing on the Appeal by Mr. Lynn Cherry, Mr. Jay Gunkelman, Ms. Julia May and Mr. Andy Mechling, members_of the fenceline monitoring committee (except Unocal), and signatories and representatives of signatories of the Good Neighborhood Agreement, from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on Unocal Corporation's (Applicant and Owner) Land Use Permit (Condition 75), which allow the construction and operation of the Unocal Reformulated Gasoline Project..(County File #LP 93-2038); Rodeo area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, recommended that the matter be continued since the parties were continuing to negotiate. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing is CONTINUED to November 5, 1996, at 4 p.m. I hereby certify that is is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Su rvisors on the date shown. Attested: PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of a Board of Supervisors d County Administrator By BARBAR S. NT,Deputy Clerk c.c. Community Development Department Public Works Department - Mitch Avalon • 5 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 c�r-t 1996 -2-44+4x. 0 toter IS m.L WooP m . Contra T0: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS • '* `+' Costa County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDvN DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �Srd'cbii� 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) i 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: YES 8IGNATURE _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMME ON 0,07ARD COMMITTEE _ APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS T 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 Al DEPUTY DS/df bo3:2038-93.bo t 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 cteadline when explaining their decision to deny the appeal. Howe�,er, 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 - ACountyof ATTEST: gdon, Secretary ning Commission, ra Costa, State of DS/dfbo3 : 203893 .res California Unocal 7-15-96 ZA Hearing Includ<-s labels from: Mr. Lynn Cherry Jay Gunkelman Unocall.lab & UnocalZA.lab 936 Elm Drive 422 Jackson Street minus duplicates -j:lu„a7.15.Ub 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 Ha Mhom 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 Claris Street 341 B Street Crockett, CA 94525 Crockett, CA 94525 EI Sobrante, CA 94803 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 Rcdeo, CA 94572 Martinez, CA 94553 Jeff Wilkes Kathleen Imhoff Unocal Wamer 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 Bames 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 Bemhard Ave. 6176 Bemhard 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 no -357 199 005 357 203 001 357 203 00 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 00�� 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 deo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94,55772 357 204 010 357 204 012 357 204 James Calhoun Sr. Patrick McGoldrick Patrick.MCGoldrick Leo Del Roberton Julia McGoldrick Jul a•- McGoldrick 333 Vallejo Ave 2671 Alice Way 7.071 Alice Way Rodeo, CA 94572 Pinole, CA 94Q564 `Pinole, CA 94564 357 204 013 � 357 204 0,141 v 357 204 015 Patrick McGoldrick Patrick• McGoldrick Patrick�- oldrick Julia McGoldrick Julia McGoldrick Julia. Goldrick 2671 ,.Alice Way ?.6.71 Alice Way 267"! Alice Way Pinole, CA 94564 Pinole, CA 94564 .-Pinole, CA 94564 357 204 01 357 204 017 357 204 018 Patrick Mcgldrick Charles & Ida Tanksley Charles Rodriguez Julia McGoldrick 321 Vallejo Ave Stephanie Saylor 2671.-K'lice Way Rodeo, CA 94572 1210 4th St Pin"Ole, 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 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 9412: 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 94572 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 a58 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 1050 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 358 212 004 358 212 005 356 212 006 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 Balzono Dean & Marueen Marella 1125 Langlie Way 1121 Langlie Way 1117 Langlie Way Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 Rodeo, CA 94572 0 ' 358 221 010 358 221 Oil 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 Donald 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 Fuo-Tai Huang John Lewis Robert & Joycee Hodge Yung-Chia Huang 2811 E Main St 1159 Viewpoint Blvd 40386 Loro P1 Humboldt, TN 36343 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 PARY, HOMEOWNERS ASS 1776 Ygnacio Valley Rd #216 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Cristino Fermin 358 201 009 358 201 010 Leonidas Fermin Uday Maharaj Andrew Lemons Jr. Bldg 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 ister Alcantara - - -907 -California 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 358 191 031 358 191 032 356 191 033 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 O PO Box 13648 PBo 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 357 198 001 357 198 002 357 196 003 Richard & Tami Zampa Melvin & Carla Hertzog Nancy Wylie-Tobin 1132 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 , 357 199 001 Jess & Estelle Esqueda Jess 4-,Estelle Esqueda Michael & Diana Adams 230 Vallejo Ave 23 allejo Ave 1218 3rd St Rodeo, CA 94572 p6deo, 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" c� 9/5/96 M Board of Supervisors LC Q' Contra Costa County v- M M a Re: Appeal on Unocal's Land Use Permit 4cn z m —{ -, 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 to 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, 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 retract this appeal. We 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 to the 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 for getting 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. 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 Count), 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 Admimstrator'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 v.-Ith 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 non-compliance with the permit, or 2) giving Unocal notice that it needed to come back 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 3 ' Alia-22-29% 1=' r„rrr,,11-1n't(.._l I='veEc,pmPr. ' `. .. ELn_1F � .` ;i` ' - • : . _ � � ATTAGHMENT'A 7125196 Contra Costa County Community Development 17 Delivered by Hand Re: Appeal of the decision on Unocal's T and Use Permit compliance made during the Annual Review pru:ess by the ?mooning Administrator To Whom it May Concern: We are writing to appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision of July 15'b,n mie during the Annul Review of Unocal's compliance with the Land Use Permit(LUP). Our concerns address the Zoning Ad.aunistrator's decision on the air pollution monitoring (fenceline monitoring) provisions, as well as some additional provisions. We are the feneeline monitoring eorrirnittee members(excluding Unocal), and we are signatories and representatives of signatories of tl:ie Good Neighbor Agreement(GNA),and are authorized under the LUP to jointly develop a fenceline rnowtoring system with Unocal, Unocal was required by the LUP'lo work jointly with the fenceline monitoring committee to develop a test program and finiO 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 conunittee and has not complied ,%N-ith 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 inoriitoring system which is required by the LUP. 2) The Zoning Administrator'ii 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,tl-ir,- igh the County providing guidance on a monitoring plan with a deadline for submittal. Unocal's non-compliance means a delay in the public hati'iug the protection of a v`D, comprehensive fenceline monitoring system which earl pro-6de early warning on n es t- o of toxic air pollution from the refinery,so that releases can be stopped, r Cn •-+_1 ?. f ' OY7 E 'AUI_,-cc-til' r, n._ Fr i t Ll1�GF 1 �1?fC;rt';' _.. r'1 c li_Irc l�'�'� P.002•'l_1l_1i�c ' , . 1) Unocal is out of eot.. iAnnee with the Land Use Permit Unocal failed to ,:omply with the folloA ng Lend 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,&t-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 '95, 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 we are proposing a return to a system based on the guideline and ws;grogram 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-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. NWhen 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 .Duly I'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 afterjoint development by Unocal and the committee, for the purpose of descnbing the goals of the fenceline monitoring program to consultants working with the committee.) 2 -{��Ia�_�-1!•�Cl.: c• �fiiftit!f" lty [IE•�.:�� lilp 11_1_77==299 . . P.l_1L_t� ill,_; 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'Iviay, 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 V 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 again, by going to another body for approval of the plan (the Community Advisory Panel or CAP review). While we a*e 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 autharity under the LUP for approval of the plan, Find does not have the knowledge on the technology which the fenceline monitoring committee has developed over the last 1 %years. The LUP designates the representatives of the GNA signatories as the body which develops a"mutually agmeeable" fenceline monitoring system with Unocal, not the CAP. (75. A) These representatives make up the fenceline monitor committee. In addition, h 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 considered the issue of reviewing the fenceline monitoring plan which Unocal proposed, inotions 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 dat, 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, a.fle: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 monitored by the final system. The Unocal-proposed system 3 HI_IIi- -1'CI'�ri 1� r t t 1 j =1'� {- 1� it I v lof:rrrn 1 1_ F' __.1 t_.J only monitors S chericals, rather than the 20-40 compounds monitored by the system jointly developed and tested by the'fenoeline 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 by the jointly tested 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 unvue. Besides the Acutely Hazardous-Materials (AHMs) they propose monitoring, there are other AHMs present at the refinery. In addition, many chemical-,present at tl:e refinery which are not ARMs 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',; decision failed to brine 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: TLe decision concentrates on putting an interum 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,hOweVeT,the details of how this system is used (such as which chemicals are monitored, 4 A'IG-__-199E. 1_•c,� �rnrn_ri t`4_i. C4�„c 1 ,f-r;�r;t �-� c.14^t ,�t� + F' how it ties into the community warning system, where it is placed, etc.) have ., been left up to Unocid. 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. 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 delay of the development of an approved g1an 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:.ity to take additional actions to ensure that Unocal come back into compliance, get an adequate final plan submitted, and cooperate with the conunittee. See our section 3)below on the Planning Commission's authority, which also pertains to the Zoning Administrator. 3) The Planning Commission bas 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 a equate finall fenceline monitor plan, with a deadline for submittal. (See the next s(:c6on (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 :�_4G 1-:llll .t7F..�1 =t-;t �lll -c -••�- 4 Immediately find Unocal as a plablic nuisance, ;,onsistcnt with the County Code. The code finds that a uami which fails to comply with its LUP is a public nuisance.' Abatement hearings can be consequently set up.3 —The County can set additional wnditiors•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 Courtty 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 v,•rongly 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. 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 brinQ'Unoeal into compliance: 1) Find Unocal out of compliance with its LUP and find Unocal a public nuisance; 2) Set Guidelines for a fence-line monitoring system to be designed and submitted to the County staff by Unocal by September 25, including detailed engineering specifications, with a fund 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 Platuting Commission finds that Unocal has rot submitted a design meeting the Guidelines, permit revocation proceedings will begin immediately against Unocal. Guidelines wbicb 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 P,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 87 and 84 is unlawful and a public nuisance. 3 Article 14-6, Civil Enforcement 'People v. Mitchell Bros,. 114 Cal.App.3d 923,930(198i). City of San Jose v. Super.Ct. I2 Cal.3d 447, 464 (1974). Morton v. Super. Ct., 124 Ca1.App.2d 577,269 Ptd 81. 84 (1954). 6 2_'-19::E. 14 110 �lfid_HYIt1,I tie1.;61opu.'-P.Y. ;� E•�1_1.^_;,��:c:1�` F'.I11t B) Meet the terms•of the RFP (Request for Proposal, attached)jointly developed-by Unocal and the fenceline mo utoring 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 au 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 H2S, as proposed by the consultant used-by Unocal and the corrvnittee in '95. D) Monitor the chemicals which were monitored during test progranTin real time. E) Adequately protect the surro;inding 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 FTIR available 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. 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. 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 rnistatements about our concerns trade 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 Inst year and a half is on early warning for accidental releases. It 7 •';'f_`G-212-1-1996 14:'�fi F +;�taill-il ilf•2. !' . �'1�-f_�C1� '� F is true that we have also brought up the concern about tower level releases, but this is a secondary,though very serious. lbank 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 Lb M a 8 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, , as_fina report(April 1, 1996) to the signatories of the Good Neighbor Agreement, and a flftal 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 II.A above are also this Working Croup. 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 &#78). 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 on 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 chool: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\she18-27.srp 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 thc 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 ao C" comprehensive fenceline monitoring system which can provide early warning on rues� o of toxic air pollution from the refinery, so that releases can be stopped. off° • � V LP9�a03 , ' oy7 E �cPT 10a 54 & 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 '95,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 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 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-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 describing the goals of the fenceline monitoring program to consultants working with the committc e.) 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 1'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.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 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 % years. The LUP designates the representatives of 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 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 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 monitoringcommittee with Unocal as a member. The Catacarb release of'94 which precipitated these LUP and GNA requirements for fenceline monitoring could have been detected by the jointly tested 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 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 &cision 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 the high-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 that 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 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 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 Plannine 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 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: 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 is a public nuisance.'Abatement hearings can be consequently set up? --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 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. Thus the lack of a monitoring system in Unocal's case presents an ongoing threat to public health and safety. 4) We propose it 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 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 country 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 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 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 FTIR available 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. 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. 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 -T(b 0' V " s i i i E�. " - ':� �� •- � ECT ?ti..t� ;l�b v 7 41 • I or s St .o . . s APPENDIX B LASAIR FOR H2S MONITORING (ALTERNATIVE TO FTIR) R:\PUBS\PROPOSAU6940854\000.APP dune, 1995 Description and Principle of Operation The LASAIR is a simple,compact,fcild-portable instrument the species fisted in the table below by a simple replacement which can provide highly specific,teal-time measurement-,- of the diode laser.Detection limits depends on the target of seteetod gases.suitable for perimeter.long-path. point species,the laser beam path length and on the response source.vehicle exhaust and ambient monitoring. requited.Detection limits will decrease(sensitivity increase) with the square root of response time.The system measures The LASAIR.measures the absorption of infrared mdiadon the product of the pathlength times the concentration.If the from a low powcred 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 other cases and is automatically _ calibrated. Simultaneous measurements of more than one gaseous species can be provided.if desired,by a relatively simple Two versions of the instrument are offered: multiplexing arrangement. LASAIR-R for long path remote sensing.The laserbeam is transmitted by a small telescope to a distant retromflector Table: Species measured with LASAIR which reflects it back to the instrument. Wave Species I,enpRemote Point.Monitor LASAIR-P for point source monitoring.The gas is sampled into a multipath cell with a total pathlenght of 12 meters(50 em m* (ppm monmonitor or (ppbv) 512 m 50 0 m* meters optional).Reduced pressum operation provides fast msponse(0.1 sec.)and good sensitivity(ppbv levels or less) NO2 0.8 25 40 1 in a compact unit. HF 1.33 0.05 0.2 0.01 HBr L341 `50 80 3 Applications H2O 1.365 0.2 0.5 0.02 - IR 1.541 2.5 7 0.3 Buildings,storage rooms,chemical plants,landfills,mints NH3 1.544 5 15_ 1 and for the monitoring of cmmissions build up in a closed space. C2I3l 1.55 50 15 1 H2S 1.578 15 46 2 Vehicle exhaust in parking lots,airfield-,roads. HCI 1.747 0.1 0.25 0.01 Plant perimeter monitoring.The beam can be sct up around co 1-579 50 80 1 the perimeter of the plact with a mirror arrangemen� CO2 L579 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 charactctizcd laser selected for the species of interest but can measure each of *Optional 50 meter path cell with I minute averaging time i LASAIR Specifications Physical Specifications: Wt.(Kg) Size(cm) Decoction Limit: sub-ppbv(>100m-ambient) LASAIR-R 10- 100 ug/ms(2m-stack) Telescope 5 50(L)X40(H)X20(W) _ Dynarn'ic Range: 4 orders of magnitude Retroreflector I 8(Dia)X6(D) Path Length: 1 - 1000 in LASAIR-P Response Time: Typically I second 12 m cell 8 40(L)X15(H)X15(W) Calibration: Internal reference requires Electronics(all versions): periodic standardization 6 35(L)X14(1I)X45(W) = Output: Continuous Analog Tripods(optional): 18 4-20 mA or 0.2V Power: 110/240VAC.50/60 Hz. 100 watts 110:RS-232,Parallel,TTL Options:Auto-Alignment.Tripods,Calibration Sources. Temp.Range: 0 to 45°C Battery Pack ThermcrEnviroh inen tal instrumeh ts Inc.'- ■ LASA1 R New Diode Laser Technology ..,.�.;:.;.-�-.:.,."-�---�..,,,,,,.•w..« --«-..�.....r.,��Wit"" �s r. _ a rwl�w^-+M.w- "' ._._ ..°w.'►""'w'aa�___._ a ..w +wl�wrw.�a.,wyy---�;^ir For Measurement of Gases Such as NO, NO2, NH3, HF, Hi, CO, COV CH4, CAAS, H2O Long Path and Monitor Features • Unequivocal identification of target gas • Path lenghts up to kilometers • No interference from other gases • Simple automatic opertation • High sensitivity •Time response: from 0.1 sec. • Small, portable, and easy to use • Multiple target capability with auto Self-Calibrating Auto-alignment option �- � M,lV ' CS, FROM, UNOCAL SFR REFINERY (THU)06. 08' 95 09:53/ST. 09: 1510. 3560734541 P 1/11 FAX. [Date June 8, 1995 Number of pages 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 (510)245-4476 REMARKS: ® Urgent ® For your review ® Reply ASAP Z 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 SFR REFINERY (THU) 06. 08' 95 09:53/ST. 09: 1510. 3560734541 P 2/11 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATION OPEN PATH FENCELINE MONITORING Background Unocal, 76 Products Company,has entered into a Good Neighbor Agreement with the CrockettlRodeo Coalition, Shoreline Environmental.Alliance(SEA), and the Citizens for a Better Environment(CBE)regarding its San Francisco ReSnery. One portion of the agreement stipulates that an improved air 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 section 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 d'ktra 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. Firms 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 FR04 UNOCAL SFR REFINERY .(THU)06. 08' 95 09:53/ST. 09: 15/NO. 3560734541 P 3/11 1995 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 fenceline monitoring group reserve the right to reject any and all proposals. The contract will be awarded by the feneeline 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 Froposal 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 PDST)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/documents 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,with 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 June 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: 1. 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 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 FTIR 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 must deliver eight copies of the test plan to Unocal. The plan must cover al.1 items defined in the Scope of Work. Up to two weeks will be allowed for review and approval of the plan prior to implementation. I 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 lune 7, 1995, Rev. 5 FROM UNOCAL SFR REFINERY (THU) 06. 08' 95 09:WK. 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 thus 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 resumes for principal team members. Discussion of team member's qualifications should include registrations, certifications,previous work 4 June 7, 1995,Rev. 5 FROM UNOCAL SFA REFINERY (THU) 06. 08' 95 09:55/ST. 09: l5/N0. 3560734541 F '.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 1~riday,'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, 1995, Rev. 5 FROM UNOCAL SFR REFINERY (THU106. 08' 95 09:55/ST. 09: 15/NO. 3560734541 P 7/11 PROPOSAL FORM Bids shall be submitted in the following form and wording: 1.0 Our lurnp sum price to perform the work associated with the San Francisco Refinery Fence Line Monitor Test Program.is: The breakdown of th;.s lump sum price is as follows: ITEM PRICING Labor Materials Travel 6 June 7, 1995, Rcv. 5 FROM UNOCAL SFR REFINERY (THU) 06. 08' 95 09:55/ST. 09: 15/NO. 3560734541 P' 8/11 2.0 Included in these lump sum prices are any costs associated with the following bid addenda(list by number)- 3.0 umber)_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 )urc 7, 1995, Rev. 5 FROM UNOCAL SFR REFINERY JHU)06. 08' 95 09:WST. 09: 15/NO. 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 firm until (date) 8.0 We have reviewed the Contractor's Appendix presented in this bid invitation and agree to comply with the requirements herein.. 8 June 7, 1995, Rev. 5 FROM UNOCAL SFA REFINERY (THU) 06. 08' 95 09:56/ST. 09: 15/NO. 3560734541 P IG/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. . L CONTRACTOR PREQUALIFICATION INFORMATION _ 2. CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE 3. LETTER OF AGREEMENT y 11.0 Identify all contractor relationships and associations with the following organizations and their personnel: 1)Unocal; 2)the Crockett/Rodeo Coalition; 3) Shoreline Environmental Alliax)ce; 4) Citizens for a Better Environment. (Attach'on a separate sheet if necessary.) 12.0 In addition to the data provided herein, attach any considerations that may affect this proposal evaluation or contract. 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 (day) (month) by of (Off cel-) (Company) California Contractor's License# 9 June 7, 1995, Rev. 5 FROM UNOCAL SFR REFINERY (THU)06. 08' 95 09:56/ST. 09:151N0. 3560734541 P 11/11 CHEMICALS . ACETALDEHYDE BENZENE FORMALDEHYDE NAPHTHALENE TOLUENE XYLENE PHENOL PAR —Benzo(a)nthracene,Beazo(b)fluomthene, Beazo(k)fumthene, 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 FLUORANTHENE FLUORENE METHANOLAMINE HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM 1 ETHANOLAMINES PCB's 10 lune 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 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 provide operators with teat time lower detection limits as part of standard software features. Under optimum conditions, the following LDL's can be achieved. Path integrated concentrations are for P • 9 9 ` 100 meter path length from FTIR to retroreflector.(200 meters roundtrip distance). Path Integrated Patti 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 Aceta Chloride 0.67 3.35 Acetylene 0.77 3.85 Acrolein 0.65 4.25 Acrylic Acid 0.46. 2.3 Actylonilrile 1.5 7.5 Ammonia 0.20 1.0 Aniline 3.9 19.5 a Arsine 1.7 8.5 Benzene 3.4 17 { Bis-dichloroethylether. 0.70 3.5 Boron Trichloride 0.20 1.0 Bromomethane 8.2 41 Butadiene 0.93 4.65 n-Butane 2.1 10.5 2-Bulanone 2.1 17 Catbon Disulfide 3.4 100 Carbon Monoxide 1.3 6.5 Carbon Tetrachloride 0:23 1.15 Carbon Tetrafluoride .2 1.0 Carbonyl Sulfide :48 2.4 ° Chlorobenzene 1.5 7.5 Chlorodifluoromethane 0.21 1.05 M 3 Chloroethane 2.0 10 Chloroform 0.25 1.25 Chloromethane 9.4 47 Chlorotrifluoromethane 0.60 3.0 Crotonaldehyde 0.76 3.8 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 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.20 1.0 1.1 Dichloroethane 1.1 5.5 1,2 Dichloroethane 7.3 36.5 1,1 Dichloroethene 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 Y r 1,1 Dimethyl Hydrazine 0.35 1.75 Dimethyl Sulfide 1.3 6.5 ` Ethane 1.6 8 4: Ethanol 0.89 4.45 Ethyl Benzene 3.4 17 y Ethylene 0.64 3.2 Ethylene Oxide 1.1 5.5 q} Ethyl Viny( Ether 1.2 6.0 Fluorobenzene 1.7 8.5 ;M Formaldehyde 0.45 2.25 }F Formic Acid, Monomer 0.78 3.9 Furan 1.1 5.5 n-Hexane 0.45 2.25 Hydrogen Bromide 1.2 6.0 Hydrogen Chloride 0.61 3.05 Hydrogen Cyanide 6.8 34 Hydrogen Fluoride 0.2 1.0 Hydrogen Sulfide 450 2250 Isobutane 0.74 3.7 Isobutanol 0.34 1.7 Isobutylene 0.41 2.05 Isoctane 0.59 2.95 Isoprene 0.45 2.25 f Isopropanol 1.1 5.5 _ Mesitylene 0.9Q 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 J Methyl Formate 1.5 7.5 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 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-Pentane 0.85 4.25 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 11 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 r 1,1,1,2 Tetrachloroethane 40 200 I: Telrachloroethene 0.20 1.0 Tetrahydrothiophene 0.89 4.45_ Toluene 3.4 17 { 1,1,1 Trichloroethane 0.55 2.75 1,1,2 Trichloroethane 1.4 7.0 Trichloroethene 0.23 1.15 ! Trichlorofluormethane 0.20 1.0 Trochlorotrifluoroethane 0.20 1.0 Vinyl Acetate 0.75 3.75 Vinyl Chloride 1.6 8 Vinylidene Chloride 0.69, 3.45 m-Xylene 1.5 7.5 y ; o-Xylene 2.7 13.5 p-Xylene 1.4 7.0 i t r' t- 01i1RA COSTa - �� PRODUCTS COMPANY Q6 AUG -•8 PH 2: 43 Jcw-2o1-96 DEVELOPP',ENT DEPT Au st 6, 1996 JEFFREY C. WAKES General Manager 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 espo sir a 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 .or installation of s 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. enu- Fude ., iifurn.a 945'c 1_'y.. PH 1 01 5 4415 A U n = i C i 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 M. 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 K ATTACHMENT "D" PRODUCTS COMPANY A C19ST4 � JCW-233-96 96 SEP 17 Ah 11: 24 C0!�t,_ .,,,,�;I. DEVEL 011M E,4�T-bEpq FR September 12, 1996 Gener a iY MC.n W lel K E S 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, /— RORA cc: GNA Sienatories Fenceline Monitoring Working Group N. E. Poloske R. O. Rittenberi2 M. A. Smith 1 Cao San Panic Avenue C. O. hutsuris ��2_,29� godeo. Cai.fcrna�a G D. R. Sanderson Py <<,o, ;,, 441; CCC Planning Commissioners A u n p c a i C 0 rn P a n CCC Board of Supervisors Randy Sawyer f • ATTACffi1LENT"E" T6 PRODUCTS COMPANY `''s ' JCW-228-96 95 SEP 11 PH 4: 29 DEVELCiy,`LNT DEPT 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 Cal Porn a 94572-1299 PH (5 101 245-4415 A U n o - a I C o m p a n v 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 'IVA rP TP o M�C► yyt 1 eyrN 1 C,V" LlIo C-tA(``