DOCSLIB.ORG

APPENDIX E Hazards and Hazardous Materials Information

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
APPENDIX E Hazards and Hazardous Materials Information APPENDIX E Hazards and Hazardous Materials Information PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 12761 Schabarum Avenue Irwindale, CA 91706 Assessor’s Identification Number (AIN): 8546-031-090 Prepared for: Teresa Wolfe Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. 393 Walnut Street, 4th Floor Pasadena, CA 91188 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 290 Conejo Ridge Avenue Thousand Oaks, CA 91361 Project No.: 185803384.200.0001 January 29,2015 Sign-off Sheet and Signatures of Environmental Professionals This document entitled PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) for the account of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. The material in it reflects Stantec’s best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibilities of such third parties. Stantec accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. All information, conclusions, and recommendations provided by Stantec in this document regarding the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) have been prepared under the supervision of and reviewed by the professionals whose signatures appear below. Prepared by (signature) Kai Pavel Geologic Associate I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional (EP) as defined in § 312.10 of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 312. I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the Property. I have developed and performed all the appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. Reviewed by (signature) Thomas Walsh Geologic Project Specialist Approved by (signature) Steven C. Brady, CEG, CHG Managing Principal Hydrogeologist Project No.: 185803384.200.0001 1 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................................................... I 1.0 SUMMARY....................................................................................................................1.1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................2.1 2.1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION................................................................................................ 2.2 2.2 SPECIAL TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS ............................ 2.2 2.3 EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ................................................................... 2.2 2.4 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS....................................................................................... 2.3 3.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION .................................................................................3.1 4.0 RECORDS REVIEW........................................................................................................4.1 4.1 PHYSICAL SETTING.......................................................................................................... 4.1 4.1.1 Property Topography and Surface Water Flow ...................................... 4.1 4.1.2 Regional and Property Geology ............................................................... 4.1 4.1.3 Regional and Property Hydrogeology ..................................................... 4.2 4.2 FEDERAL, STATE AND TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS ........................................ 4.2 4.2.1 Listings for Property...................................................................................... 4.3 4.2.2 Listings for Nearby Sites with Potential to Impact Property.................... 4.4 4.3 LOCAL/REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS........................................................ 4.5 4.3.1 County of Los Angeles Public Health........................................................ 4.6 4.3.2 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) ................. 4.6 4.3.3 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LADPW).................. 4.6 4.3.4 Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) and Fire Department (LAFD)...................................................................... 4.6 4.3.5 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB)......... 4.7 4.4 HISTORICAL RECORDS REVIEW..................................................................................... 4.7 4.4.1 Land Title Records/Deeds .......................................................................... 4.7 4.4.2 Aerial Photographs...................................................................................... 4.7 4.4.3 City Directories............................................................................................. 4.8 4.4.4 Historical Fire Insurance Maps.................................................................... 4.9 4.4.5 Historical Topographic Maps ................................................................... 4.10 4.4.6 Other Historical Sources............................................................................ 4.10 5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE..............................................................................................5.1 5.1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 5.1 5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION................................................................................................. 5.1 5.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.......................................... 5.2 5.4 INTERIOR OBSERVATIONS .............................................................................................. 5.3 5.5 EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS.............................................................................................. 5.3 5.6 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS/STRUCTURES......................................................... 5.4 5.7 ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS (AST) ..................................................................... 5.4 5.8 ADJOINING PROPERTIES................................................................................................ 5.4 5.8.1 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties......................................................... 5.4 5.8.2 Observed Evidence of Past Uses of Adjoining Properties...................... 5.5 5.8.3 Pits, Ponds or Lagoons on Adjoining Properties....................................... 5.5 Project No.: 185803384.200.0001 i PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 5.9 OBSERVED PHYSICAL SETTING ...................................................................................... 5.5 6.0 INTERVIEWS..................................................................................................................6.1 6.1 FINDINGS FROM INTERVIEWS WITH MAJOR OCCUPANTS/OTHERS .......................... 6.1 7.0 EVALUATION................................................................................................................7.1 7.1 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS ............................................................................................. 7.1 7.2 DATA GAPS.....................................................................................................................7.2 7.3 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 7.2 8.0 NON-SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................................8.1 9.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................9.1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site Map Figure 2 Site Vicinity Map LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY AND VICINITY APPENDIX B ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY DATABASE SEARCH REPORT APPENDIX C AGENCY RECORDS APPENDIX D INTERVIEW FORMS APPENDIX E STANTEC EMPLOYEE RESUMEES Project No.: 185803384.200.0001 ii PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Abbreviations AAI All Appropriate Inquiry ACM Asbestos containing material AST Aboveground Storage Tank ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CA FID California Facility Inventory Database BER Business Environmental Risk CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulation CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CREC Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control DWR Department of Water Resources EMI National Environmental Monitoring Initiative ELUC Environmental Land Use Control EP Environmental Professional EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Environmental Site Assessment FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FINDS Facility Index System ft bgs Feet below ground surface ft msl Feet above mean sea level HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions LADBS Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety LADPW Los Angeles Department of Public Works LBP Lead-based Paint PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls pCi/L PicoCuries per liter of air REC Recognized Environmental Conditions RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SWEEPS Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System USDA United States Department of Agriculture UST Underground Storage Tank Project No.: 185803384.200.0001 i PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY January 29,2015 1.0 SUMMARY Stantec
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Source-Rock Geochemistry of the San Joaquin Basin Province, California
    Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California Chapter 11 Source-Rock Geochemistry of the San Joaquin Basin Province, California By Kenneth E. Peters, Leslie B. Magoon, Zenon C. Valin, and Paul G. Lillis HIO for all source-rock units except the Tumey formation of Contents Atwill (1935). Abstract-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 Thick, organic-rich, oil-prone shales of the upper Mio- Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 cene Monterey Formation occur in the Tejon depocenter in Methods----------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 the southern part of the basin with somewhat less favorable Discussion--------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 occurrence in the Southern Buttonwillow depocenter to the Upper Miocene Antelope shale---------------------------------------------------3 north. Shales of the upper Miocene Monterey Formation Eocene Tumey formation-----------------------------------------------------------4 Eocene Kreyenhagen Formation--------------------------------------------------4 generated most of the petroleum in the San Joaquin Basin. Cretaceous-Paleocene Moreno Formation--------------------------------------5 Thick, organic-rich, oil-prone Kreyenhagen Formation source Conclusions----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -5 rock occurs in the Buttonwillow
    [Show full text]
  • Lost Hills Oil Field (Kem County) Aquifer Exemption Record of Decision
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 May 20, 2019 Kenneth A. Harris Jr. State Oil and Gas Supervisor Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources California Department of Conservation 801 K Street, MS 18-05 Sacramento, CA 95814-3530 Re: Approval of Aquifer Exemption for the Lost Hills Oil Field, Kem County, California Dear Mr. Harris: Based on a thorough review of the supporting documents submitted by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby approves the aquifer exemption request for portions of the Tulare Formation in the Lost Hills Oil Field in Kern County, California. In accordance with applicable regulations at 40 C.F.R. Parts 144, 145, and 146, we find that this aquifer exemption request is a non-substantial program revision, and the requested formations meet the following federal exemption criteria: • The portions of the formation proposed for exemption in the field do not currently serve as sources of drinking water; and • The portions of the formation proposed for exemption in the field cannot now and will not in the future serve as a source of drinking water because they are commercially hydrocarbon-producing. The approved aquifer exemption boundaries and depths, along with the EPA's analysis and rationale in support of the approval, are detailed in the enclosed Record of Decision. In addition, we are enclosing the application and other documents submitted by the DOGGR and SWRCB to the EPA that were considered in this approval decision.
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIANS at RISK: an Analysis of Health Threats from Oil and Gas Pollution in Two Communities Case Studies in Lost Hills and Upper Ojai
    CALIFORNIANS AT RISK: An Analysis of Health Threats from Oil and Gas Pollution in Two Communities Case studies in Lost Hills and Upper Ojai January 2015 TM EARTHWORKS TM EARTHWORKS TM EARTHWORKS TM EARTHWORKS CALIFORNIANS AT RISK: An Analysis of Health Threats from Oil and Gas Pollution in Two Communities Case studies in Lost Hills and Upper Ojai January 2015 AUTHORS: Jhon Arbelaez, California Organizer, Earthworks Bruce Baizel, Energy Program Director, Earthworks Report available at: http://californiahealth.earthworksaction.org Photos by Earthworks ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report is funded in part by a grant from The California Wellness Foundation (TCWF). Created in 1992 as a private independent foundation, TCWF’s mission is to improve the health of the people of California by making grants for health promotion, wellness education and disease prevention. We would also like to thank the Broad Reach Fund for its generous financial support for this investigation. Earthworks would like to thank The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation for its generous support of this report. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. A special thank you to Rosanna Esparza at Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund for her assistance with health surveys and continued grassroots backing in Kern County; and Andrew Grinberg and Miriam Gordon, Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund for review and contributions to the report. Thank you to ShaleTest and Calvin Tillman for the use of the FLIR camera, and their guidance on community air testing. Thank you to Citizens for Responsible Oil and Gas (CFROG), for their knowledge and expertise in Ventura County.
    [Show full text]
  • W • 32°38'47.76”N 117°8'52.44”
    public access 32°32’4”N 117°7’22”W • 32°38’47.76”N 117°8’52.44”W • 33°6’14”N 117°19’10”W • 33°22’45”N 117°34’21”W • 33°45’25.07”N 118°14’53.26”W • 33°45’31.13”N 118°20’45.04”W • 33°53’38”N 118°25’0”W • 33°55’17”N 118°24’22”W • 34°23’57”N 119°30’59”W • 34°27’38”N 120°1’27”W • 34°29’24.65”N 120°13’44.56”W • 34°58’1.2”N 120°39’0”W • 35°8’54”N 120°38’53”W • 35°20’50.42”N 120°49’33.31”W • 35°35’1”N 121°7’18”W • 36°18’22.68”N 121°54’5.76”W • 36°22’16.9”N 121°54’6.05”W • 36°31’1.56”N 121°56’33.36”W • 36°58’20”N 121°54’50”W • 36°33’59”N 121°56’48”W • 36°35’5.42”N 121°57’54.36”W • 37°0’42”N 122°11’27”W • 37°10’54”N 122°23’38”W • 37°41’48”N 122°29’57”W • 37°45’34”N 122°30’39”W • 37°46’48”N 122°30’49”W • 37°47’0”N 122°28’0”W • 37°49’30”N 122°19’03”W • 37°49’40”N 122°30’22”W • 37°54’2”N 122°38’40”W • 37°54’34”N 122°41’11”W • 38°3’59.73”N 122°53’3.98”W • 38°18’39.6”N 123°3’57.6”W • 38°22’8.39”N 123°4’25.28”W • 38°23’34.8”N 123°5’40.92”W • 39°13’25”N 123°46’7”W • 39°16’30”N 123°46’0”W • 39°25’48”N 123°25’48”W • 39°29’36”N 123°47’37”W • 39°33’10”N 123°46’1”W • 39°49’57”N 123°51’7”W • 39°55’12”N 123°56’24”W • 40°1’50”N 124°4’23”W • 40°39’29”N 124°12’59”W • 40°45’13.53”N 124°12’54.73”W 41°18’0”N 124°0’0”W • 41°45’21”N 124°12’6”W • 41°52’0”N 124°12’0”W • 41°59’33”N 124°12’36”W Public Access David Horvitz & Ed Steck In late December of 2010 and early Janu- Some articles already had images, in which ary of 2011, I drove the entire California I added mine to them.
    [Show full text]
  • Nor Th P a Cific Ocean C Alifornia
    204 ¢ U.S. Coast Pilot 7, Chapter 4 Chapter 7, Pilot Coast U.S. 121° 120° 119° 118° 117° 18720 Point Arguello C ALIFORNIA Point Conception Santa Barbara 18725 T A B A R B A R A C H A Ventura S A N N N E L 18724 Port Hueneme Santa Miguel Island Santa Cruz Island 18740 18721 18744 18748 34° Santa Rosa Island 18729 18727 18728 Los Angeles SANTA MONICA BAY 18751 S A N T A P E D R 18749 Newport Beach O C H A N N 18756 E L 18754 18757 Santa Barbara Island 18774 Santa Catalina Island 18746 San Clemente San Nicolas Island 18746 E R S A N T A 18720 O U T B A R B A R A P A Oceanside S S A G E 18758 18755 18763 Encinitas 33° 18765 Del Mar GULF OF SANTA CATALINA San Clemente Island 18765 San Diego NORTH PA CIFIC OCEAN 18762 18773 18764 18772 Chart Coverage in Coast Pilot 7—Chapter 4 18740 19 SEP2021 NOAA’s Online Interactive Chart Catalog has complete chart coverage http://www.charts.noaa.gov/InteractiveCatalog/nrnc.shtml 19 SEP 2021 U.S. Coast Pilot 7, Chapter 4 ¢ 205 San Diego to Point Arguello, California (14) METEOROLOGICAL TABLE – COASTAL AREA OFF SAN DIEGO, CA Between 31°N to 34°N and 116°W to 120°W YEARS OF WEATHER ELEMENTS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC RECORD Wind > 33 knots ¹ 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 48 Wave Height > 9 feet ¹ 0.8 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 48 Visibility < 2 nautical miles ¹ 4.4 4.5 2.8 2.4 1.5 3.2 2.9 2.2 3.0 4.7 3.3 4.0 48 Precipitation ¹ 3.6 3.6 2.4 1.7 1.2 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.9 2.1 3.1 1.8 Temperature > 69° F 1.2 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.9 3.0 9.2 14.7 14.8 9.0 4.4 1.7 5.4 Mean Temperature (°F) 58.3 58.4 58.5 59.3 60.4 62.1 64.7 66.4 66.5 65.2 62.7 59.9 61.9 Temperature < 33° F ¹ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean RH (%) 77 79 78 79 81 83 84 84 83 81 77 76 80 Overcast or Obscured ¹ 19.4 21.4 22.2 25.7 37.9 48.1 45.7 38.8 31.4 26.3 15.4 16.7 29.3 Mean Cloud Cover (8ths) 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.2 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.3 4.6 4.2 3.4 3.5 4.4 Mean SLP (mbs) 1018 1018 1017 1015 1015 1013 1013 1013 1012 1014 1017 1018 1015 Ext.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Project Profile
    USA Alameda Corridor, California - 1 - This report was compiled by the NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management. Please Note: This Project Profile has been prepared as part of the ongoing OMEGA Centre of Excellence work on Mega Urban Transport Projects. The information presented in the Profile is essentially a 'work in progress' and will be updated/amended as necessary as work proceeds. Readers are therefore advised to periodically check for any updates or revisions. The Centre and its collaborators/partners have obtained data from sources believed to be reliable and have made every reasonable effort to ensure its accuracy. However, the Centre and its collaborators/partners cannot assume responsibility for errors and omissions in the data nor in the documentation accompanying them. - 2 - CONTENTS A INTRODUCTION Type of project Project name Description of mode type Principal transport nodes Major associated developments Parent projects Country/Location Current status B BACKGROUND TO PROJECT Principal project objectives A description of the project from key stakeholders Stakeholders Project objectives Key enabling mechanisms and decision to proceed A description of key mechanisms Process and events leading up to decision Feasibility studies Main organisations involved Pre-construction phase Construction phase Operations phase Planning regime Outline of planning legislation/policy related to the project and its associated developments Environmental statements and outcomes related to the project Overview
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Sector Resilience Final Report and Recommendations July 10, 2015
    National Infrastructure Advisory Council Transportation Sector Resilience Final Report and Recommendations July 10, 2015 Jack Baylis Glenn S. Gerstell Dr. Beverly Scott Working Group Co-Chair Working Group Co-Chair Working Group Co-Chair President and Chief Partner Chief Executive Officer Executive Officer Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & Beverly Scott Associates, LLC The Baylis Group, LLC McCloy LLP Margaret E. Grayson Constance Lau Jim Nicholson President President and Chief President and Chief MTN Government Services Executive Officer Executive Officer Hawaiian Electric Industries, PVS Chemicals, Inc. Inc. (HEI) About the NIAC The National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) provides the President of the United States with advice on the security and resilience of the critical infrastructure sectors and their functional systems, physical assets, and cyber networks. These critical infrastructure sectors span the U.S. economy and include the chemical; commercial facilities; communications; critical manufacturing; dams; defense industrial base; emergency services; energy; financial services; food and agriculture; government facilities; healthcare and public health; information technology; nuclear reactors, materials and waste; transportation systems; and water and wastewater systems sectors. The NIAC also advises the lead Federal agencies that have critical infrastructure responsibilities. Specifically, the Council has been charged with making recommendations to: • Enhance the partnership of the public and private sectors in securing and enhancing the security and resilience of critical infrastructure and their supporting functional systems, physical assets, and cyber networks, and provide reports on this issue to the President through the Secretary of Homeland Security, as appropriate. • Propose and develop ways to encourage private industry to perform periodic risk assessments and implement risk-reduction programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Salinity and the Effects of Produced Water Disposal in The
    Groundwater salinity and the AUTHORS Janice M. Gillespie ~ California Water effects of produced water disposal Science Center, US Geological Survey (USGS), Sacramento, California; in the Lost Hills–Belridge oil [email protected] Jan Gillespie received her B.S. degree in fields, Kern County, California geology from Bemidji State University, Minnesota, her M.S. from South Dakota School Janice M. Gillespie, Tracy A. Davis, Michael J. Stephens, of Mines and Technology, and her Ph.D. from Lyndsay B. Ball, and Matthew K. Landon the University of Wyoming. Formerly a petroleum and hydrogeology professor in the Department of Geosciences at California State ABSTRACT University, Bakersfield, and a petroleum Increased oil and gas production in many areas has led to concerns over geologist in the San Joaquin Valley of California, she is now a research scientist for the USGS’s the effects these activities may be having on nearby groundwater regional aquifer monitoring project for quality. In this study, we determine the lateral and vertical extent California SB4 (the Well Stimulation Bill) of groundwater with less than 10,000 mg/L total dissolved solids delineating protected aquifers near oil – fi near the Lost Hills Belridge oil elds in northwestern Kern County, producing areas. California, and document evidence of impacts by produced water disposal within the Tulare aquifer and overlying alluvium, the primary Tracy A. Davis ~ California Water Science protected aquifers in the area. Center, USGS, San Diego, California; The depth at which groundwater salinity surpasses 10,000 mg/L [email protected] ranges from 150 m (500 ft) in the northwestern part of the study area to Tracy Davis received her B.S.
    [Show full text]
  • See Full Resume
    JAMES THOMPSON, SENIOR PROJECT PROFESSIONAL Education B.S. Geology, University of Kansas, 2008 Cume Laude M.S. Geology, University of Nevada Las Vegas (Course Work Completed, degree pending Thesis Completion) Professional Affiliations Pacific Section American Association of Professional Geologists San Joaquin Geological Society Professional Experience As a Senior Project Professional at SCS Engineers, Mr. Thompson provides geologic consulting, mapping, and technical writing for both environmental documents and petroleum industry compliance and permitting. Mr. Thompson has over five years of geologic experience working in the oil and gas industry as well as three years in environmental compliance which has afforded him a wide array of geologic mapping experience and knowledge of the software used to display and analyze geologic features and processes. A majority of projects worked on over the last three years at SCS, Mr. Thompson has performed geologic and hydrogeological analysis in order to prepare reports concerning the protection of shallow ground water aquifers throughout Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Kern County. Mr. Thompson has also been a key contributor in preparing permit application packages that include projects such as oil and gas production plans, pipeline replacement plans and general land use permitting. This experience has helped Mr. Thompson maintain great working relationships with the state regulatory agencies. Mr. Thompson previously worked as a production geologist for Aera Energy, LLC for three years and following
    [Show full text]
  • September 2019
    Published by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union www.ilwu.org VOL 77, NO 8 • SEPTEMBER 2019 THE INSIDE NEWS LETTERS TO DISPATCHER 2 Harry Bridges statue inspires a new generation 6 TRANSITIONS 8 BOOKS & VIDEO 8 Candidate interviews: The ILWU International Executive Board met with Senators Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren at the meeting on August 23 in San Francisco. Invitations were extended to all of the candidates running for the Democratic nomination. Additional candidates are invited to December Board meeting. Presidential candidates 40th Annual Wilmington Labor Day Parade and Picnic page 3 meet ILWU Executive Board hree top contenders run- encouraged to hold their own meet- Another brother got a union job, and ning for U.S. President ings for members to discuss the can- became a life-long union member. Tmet with ILWU Interna- didates and issues. “At every town hall meeting, I tional Executive Board members Elizabeth Warren goes first always tell people that unions built America’s middle-class and they will in August. Senators Elizabeth After thanking International re-build America’s middle class.” Warren, Bernie Sanders and President Willie Adams and Board Kamala Harris each took sev- members for the invitation to appear, Beating the odds to teach eral hours from their busy Warren launched into her fast- “I wanted to become a teacher, paced overview of the problems schedules to sit down with the but our family had no money to facing America’s working families. pay for a college application, let Board, give short presentations She explaining that her views were alone four years of tuition, so I got and answer questions from shaped by growing-up in a working- a scholarship but then got married union members on August 22 class family of six, “…on the ragged and dropped-out at 19.
    [Show full text]
  • Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield Field Office
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT December 2020, Oil and Gas Lease Sale Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-CA-C060-2020-0120 Table of Contents ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... V CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plans ................................................................................................. 2 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations and Other Plans ............................................................................. 5 National Environmental Policy Act ...................................................................................................... 5 Oil and Gas Laws and Regulations ....................................................................................................... 5 Federal Land Policy and Management Act ........................................................................................... 6 Clean Air Act .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Innovative Crude Oil Production Method Application: Chevron And
    California Low Carbon Fuel Standard §95489(c): Application for LCFS Credits for Producing and Transporting Crudes Using Innovative Methods Cahn Solar Plant Site Location: Chevron’s Lost Hills Oil Field SE SE SEC 4 27 21 Lost Hills, CA 93249 March 2020 Public Review Draft Executive Summary Chevron U.S.A. Inc. has contracted with SunPower Corporation to design and build a 29MWAC solar photovoltaic plant on approximately 220 acres of Chevron’s land adjacent to Chevron’s Lost Hills oil field in Kern County, California. Construction is near completion with an expected commercial operation date in March 2020. The plant design is also planned to incorporate lithium ion batteries with a 20 megawatt- hour (MWh) capacity that will be DC-coupled with the solar inverters. The addition of the battery storage component is currently undergoing a System Impact Study by PG&E and is expected to be constructed and online during the fourth quarter of 2020. Chevron will purchase all the output of the Solar Plant under a Power Purchase Agreement. The purchased electricity will partially displace the energy currently consumed from Pacific Gas & Electric with renewable solar energy generated on-site to be used by the oilfield operations. Solar energy generated in excess of Chevron’s real-time demand will be exported to Pacific Gas & Electric according to California’s Net Energy Metering 2.0 program. The battery modules will store energy generated by the solar arrays during peak solar output, reducing the excess power exported to the grid, and will dispatch it later when solar output is lower for consumption by the oil field.
    [Show full text]