CONOCOPHILLIPS RODEO REFINERY CLEAN FUELS EXPANSION PROJECT Environmental Impact Report SCH 2005092028 LP 052048

Contra Costa County November 2006 Community Development Department

Contra Costa County November 2006 Community Development Department

651 Pine Street 4th Floor - North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 (925) 335-1210 www.co.contra-costa.ca.us

TABLE OF CONTENTS ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project DEIR

Page

1. Introduction...... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of This Document ...... 1-1 1.2 Project Overview...... 1-1 1.3 Key Areas of Environmental Concern...... 1-2 1.4 Organization of the Document ...... 1-2 1.5 Use of this Document by Agencies ...... 1-3 1.6 Permits and Approvals...... 1-3

2. Summary of Environmental Impacts...... 2-1 2.1 Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Project...... 2-1 2.2 Review of Proposed Project Impacts ...... 2-1

3. Project Description ...... 3-1 3.1 Project Overview and Location ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Introduction ...... 3-1 3.1.2 Location ...... 3-2 3.2 Project Objectives and Components...... 3-5 3.2.1 Project Objectives ...... 3-5 3.2.2 Project Component List...... 3-7 3.3 Existing ConocoPhillips Refinery ...... 3-7 3.3.1 Basic Refinery Processes ...... 3-7 3.3.2 Existing Refinery Processes and Facilities...... 3-10 3.4 Components of the Proposed Project ...... 3-18 3.4.1 Introduction ...... 3-18 3.4.2 New and Modified Facilities and Equipment ...... 3-18 3.4.3 Import and Export ...... 3-33 3.4.4 Operations Workforce ...... 3-35 3.4.5 Operations Phase – Traffic and Transportation ...... 3-35 3.4.6 Operations Phase – Transportation of Hazardous Materials...... 3-35 3.5 Project Construction ...... 3-35 3.5.1 Site Preparation ...... 3-35 3.5.2 Construction Labor Force...... 3-36 3.5.3 Construction Materials and Services...... 3-36 3.5.4 Construction Traffic...... 3-36 3.6 Maintenance Activities ...... 3-38 3.7 Permits and Approvals Required ...... 3-39

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project i November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report Preliminary − Subject to Revision Table of Contents

Page

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures...... 4-1 4.0 Approach to the Analysis of Impacts...... 4-1 4.1 Aesthetics, Visual Quality, and Light and Glare...... 4.1-1 4.2 Air Quality ...... 4.2-1 4.3 Biological Resources ...... 4.3-1 4.4 Cultural Resources ...... 4.4-1 4.5 Energy ...... 4.5-1 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity...... 4.6-1 4.7 Public Health...... 4.7-1 4.8 Public Safety...... 4.8-1 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality...... 4.9-1 4.10 Land Use, Plans, and Policies ...... 4.10-1 4.11 Noise ...... 4.11-1 4.12 Public Services ...... 4.12-1 4.13 Transportation and Traffic...... 4.13-1 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems...... 4.14-1 4.15 Agricultural Resources...... 4.15-1 4.16 Mineral Resources...... 4.16-1 4.17 Employment, Population, and Housing...... 4.17-1 4.18 Parks and Recreation ...... 4.18-1

5. CEQA Statutory Sections...... 5-1 5.1 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Impacts...... 5-1 5.2 Cumulative Impacts ...... 5-1 5.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts...... 5-14 5.4 Effects Found Not to Be Significant ...... 5-15

6. Analysis of Alternatives ...... 6-1 6.1 General Consideration of Alternatives ...... 6-1 6.2 Alternatives to the Project...... 6-4

7. Report Preparation ...... 7-1 7.1 Report Authors...... 7-1 7.2 Agencies and Organizations Contacted...... 7-2

8. Glossary and Acronyms...... 8-1 8.1 Glossary...... 8-1 8.2 Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This EIR ...... 8-8

Appendix A Biological Resource Information ...... A-1

List of Figures 3-1 Regional Location ...... 3-3 3-2 Refinery Boundary and Vicinity...... 3-4 3-3 Locations of Site Modifications ...... 3-6 3-4 Projected Gasoline plus Diesel Demand...... 3-7 3-5 San Francisco Refinery Block Flow Diagram after CFEP Modifications ...... 3-11 3-6 Project Block Flow Diagram...... 3-21 3-7 HGO Utilization and Fractionation Process...... 3-22

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project ii November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report Preliminary − Subject to Revision Table of Contents

Page

List of Figures (cont.) 3-8 Proposed New SRU and TGTUs, ConocoPhillips Refinery, Rodeo, CA...... 3-25 3-9 Proposed Hydrogen Plant Process Flow Diagram...... 3-29 3-10 Project Site Plan ...... 3-37 4.1-1 Viewpoint Location Map...... 4.1-4 4.1-2 Photo Representation of Project Area ...... 4.1-5 4.1-3 Visual Simulation of Project Site ...... 4.1-6 4.1-4 Visual Simulation of Project Site ...... 4.1-7 4.1-5 Photo Representation of Project Area ...... 4.1-9 4.2-1 Windrose for ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery ...... 4.2-3 4.3-1 Habitat Types within the Project Vicinity and Areas of Project Impacts ...... 4.3-4 4.6-1 Active and Potentially Active Bay Area Earthquake Faults ...... 4.6-3 4.8-1 Risk Matrix for Ranking Scenarios...... 4.8-10 4.8-2 Scenario Hazard Matrix for the Proposed Project...... 4.8-19 4.10-1 Existing Land Use Designations ...... 4.10-3 4.10-2 Existing Zoning Designations...... 4.10-4 4.11-1 Location of Noise Monitoring Sites ...... 4.11-7 4.13-1 Project Location and Road Network ...... 4.13-4 4.13-2 Existing (AM/PM) Peak Hour Freeway and Intersection Volumes ...... 4.13-5 4.13-3 2006 Project (AM/PM) Peak Hour Freeway and Intersection Volumes...... 4.13-15 4.13-4 2006 With-Project (AM/PM) Peak Hour Freeway and Intersection Volumes .. 4.13-16

List of Tables 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the ConocoPhillips CFEP...... 2-9 3-1 Summary of Clean Fuels Expansion Project Components ...... 3-8 3-2 Project Matrix...... 3-19 3-3 Proposed Sulfur Recovery Plant Capacity Changes...... 3-26 3-4 ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project Product Flow Changes ...... 3-34 3-5 ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project Input/Output Basis...... 3-34 4.2-1 State and National Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources ...... 4.2-5 4.2-2 Attainment Status of the Bay Area for the State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards...... 4.2-9 4.2-3 Required Offset Ratios for BAAQMD’s New Source Review ...... 4.2-13 4.2-4 BAAQMD Rules and Regulations Applicable to the Project...... 4.2-15 4.2-5 Air Quality Data Summary for the Project Area...... 4.2-17 4.2-6 Air Quality Data Summary from Facility Area...... 4.2-18 4.2-7 Criteria Pollutant Emissions for the Existing ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery... 4.2-19 4.2-8 Estimated Baseline Emissions...... 4.2-22 4.2-9 CFEP PSD Applicability...... 4.2-26 4.2-10 ConocoPhillips CFEP Total Project Daily Emissions ...... 4.2-35 4.2-11 ConocoPhillips CFEP Total Project Annual Emissions ...... 4.2-36 4.3-1 Focused List of Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in or near the ConocoPhillips Refinery...... 4.3-11 4.3-2 Key Components of the California Marine Invasive Species Act ...... 4.3-26 4.4-1 Identified Cultural Resources and Surveys Conducted within the Proposed Project Area...... 4.4-4 4.5-1 Refinery Gas Production from 2000 through 2004...... 4.5-4 4.5-2 Natural Gas Purchased from 2000 through 2004 ...... 4.5-6 4.5-3 Direct Energy Use for Construction of the Proposed Project ...... 4.5-10

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project iii November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report Preliminary − Subject to Revision Table of Contents

Page

List of Tables (cont.) 4.5-4 Energy Use at Process Units Proposed to Be Modified...... 4.5-11 4.6-1 Active Faults in the Project Site Vicinity...... 4.6-5 4.8-1 Hazard Evaluation Criteria...... 4.8-11 4.8-2 Qualitative and Quantitative Estimates of Failures that Could Contribute to Hazardous Releases Resulting in Moderate or High Offsite Consequences ...... 4.8-13 4.8-3 ConocoPhillips CFEP Accident Scenarios...... 4.8-16 4.9-1 Water Quality Characteristics of Effluent Discharge, ConocoPhillips San Francisco Area Refinery, Rodeo, California, for the Period January 2003 through August 2005...... 4.9-11 4.11-1 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments, dBA ...... 4.11-5 4.11-2 Ambient Noise Levels at Monitored Locations, dBA ...... 4.11-8 4.11-3 ConocoPhillips CFEP – List of Project Equipment...... 4.11-11 4.11-4 Typical Noise Levels from Industrial Equipment, dBA ...... 4.11-12 4.11-5 Typical Commercial Construction Noise Levels...... 4.11-14 4.11-6 Typical noise levels from construction equipment...... 4.11-15 4.13-1 Definitions for Intersection Level of Service...... 4.13-7 4.13-2 Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary ...... 4.13-8 4.13-3 Existing Freeway Mainline Level of Service Summary...... 4.13-8 4.13-4 Peak Project Construction Vehicle Trip Generation...... 4.13-12 4.13-5 2006 with Project Intersection Level of Service Summary ...... 4.13-14 4.13-6 2006 With-Project Freeway Mainline Level of Service Summary...... 4.13-18 5-1 Refinery Projects Considered in the Cumulative Analysis ...... 5-4 5-2 Local Refinery/Energy Infrastructure Projects...... 5-5 5-3 Projects Planned or in Progress in the City of Hercules ...... 5-6 5-4 Development Plans and Projects Considered in the Analysis of Proposed Project Cumulative Impacts...... 5-7

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project iv November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report Preliminary − Subject to Revision CHAPTER 1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of This Document

This environmental impact report is an informational document intended to disclose to the public and decision-makers the environmental consequences of the proposed ConocoPhillips San Francisco Refinery’s Clean Fuels Expansion Project (referred to herein as the CFEP or the Proposed Project). The Proposed Project includes a new Hydrogen Plant to be owned and operated by a third party. This document assesses the direct and indirect environmental impacts, as well as the cumulative environmental impacts, that would occur as a result of the construction and operation of the Proposed Project. The analyses in this document are based upon project information contained in the ConocoPhillips Refinery’s Land Use Permit application (as amended) to Contra Costa County’s Community Development Department and in the Refinery’s Land Use permit application to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). This environmental impact report is intended as an informational document that, in itself, does not determine whether the Proposed Project would be approved, but informs the local planning and decision-making process.

1.2 Project Overview

The Proposed Project would add new facilities and modify existing facilities to produce additional clean fuels. The Refinery would use heavy gas oil (HGO) that is produced at the Refinery, but is currently being sold into the heavy gas oil and fuel oil markets, to produce cleaner-burning gasoline and ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuels targeted for the California market. Overall, Refinery production following implementation of the Proposed Project would increase by up to approximately 1,000,000 gallons/day or 30 percent over current Refinery production levels. Gasoline production is expected to increase by up to approximately 791,000 gallons per day or 35 percent over current levels. Diesel and jet fuel production is expected to increase by up to approximately 290,000 gallons per day or 21.5 percent over current levels.

The Proposed Project would also include a new Hydrogen Plant to produce the additional hydrogen required in the production of additional fuel. The Hydrogen Plant is planned to be constructed by a third party who would own and operate the facility. The Hydrogen Plant would be constructed concurrently with the other components of the Proposed Project constructed by ConocoPhillips. The Hydrogen Plant would use process streams from the Refinery and would

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 1-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 1. Introduction

produce steam and electricity as well as hydrogen for refinery processes. The Hydrogen Plant would be constructed within the Refinery property.

The Proposed Project would be constructed on existing Refinery property now zoned for heavy industrial use. When operating, the Proposed Project would add approximately 12 new permanent Refinery employees, and approximately 15 new permanent employees at the new Hydrogen Plant.

Construction of the Proposed Project is scheduled to begin in the first quarter of 2007. Startup of some operations would occur throughout the second and third quarters of 2008. Final tie-ins and modifications to existing process units are scheduled during turnarounds planned for the third quarter of 2008.

1.3 Key Areas of Environmental Concern

This study examined the potential impacts of the Proposed Project. All of the topics in the current California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Checklist and other topics pertinent to the Proposed Project were studied: Aesthetics, Visual Quality, and Light and Glare; Agriculture Resources; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Energy; Geology, Soils, and Seismicity; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use, Plans, and Policies; Mineral Resources; Noise; Employment, Population, and Housing; Public Health; Public Services; Public Safety; Parks and Recreation; Transportation and Traffic; and Utilities and Service Systems.

1.4 Organization of the Document

This document is organized into the following chapters:

• Chapter 1 – Introduction

• Chapter 2 – Summary of Environmental Impacts: Summarizes environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the Proposed Project. The summaries indicate the level of significance of those impacts.

• Chapter 3 – Project Description: Provides a detailed description of the Proposed Project, including its location, background information, major objectives, and technical characteristics.

• Chapter 4 – Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Contains an analysis of environmental issue areas. Discussion of each issue area is divided into: a) the setting, which describes environmental conditions and regulatory information; b) the standards of significance for determining the degree or level of potential environmental impacts for each issue; c) potential impacts, which indicate the environmental effects that are anticipated from the Proposed Project, and d) mitigation.

• Chapter 5 – CEQA Statutory Sections: Provides discussions of various California Environmental Quality Act-mandated considerations including significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, cumulative impacts, and growth-inducing impacts.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 1-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 1. Introduction

• Chapter 6 – Alternatives: Describes the alternatives to the Proposed Project and lists their associated environmental effects.

• Chapter 7 – Report Preparation: Lists report authors by section and County staff that assisted with the preparation and review of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as well as agencies and organizations consulted.

• Chapter 8 – Glossary and Acronyms: Presents definitions of terms used throughout the report. For some terms, expanded definitions are included to further assist the reader’s understanding of refinery processes in general and specific to ConocoPhillips. A list of acronyms used in the report is included as well.

1.5 Use of this Document by Agencies

In accordance with the CEQA, as amended, Contra Costa County must consider the environmental implications of the Proposed Project before making any determination to grant or deny ConocoPhillips’s request for a Land Use Permit (LUP). Contra Costa County will use this EIR when considering this application for a LUP. Other agencies that may rely on this EIR when considering approvals for the Proposed Project include the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and Caltrans.

1.6 Permits and Approvals

The Proposed Project would require permits and approvals before project construction can begin. Among these are a Land Use Permit, Encroachment Permits, and Building Permits from Contra Costa County, and Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate approvals from the BAAQMD. Any changes in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits would require approval from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. A Caltrans encroachment permit may be needed to implement the traffic mitigation measures.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 1-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report CHAPTER 2 Summary of Environmental Impacts

2.1 Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Project

This section provides a summary of the environmental impacts of the proposed ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project (CFEP), as developed during this analysis. The impacts of the Proposed Project and those mitigation measures included as a part of the Proposed Project have been extracted from the analyses and evaluations that are presented and discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of this document. The cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project are also summarized in Chapter 5. To assist readers with a brief overview of the results of the analysis contained in this document, Section 2.2 presents summary statements of impacts from each environmental topic of study. Each summary statement is a formal statement of impact and proposed mitigation as well as level of significance before and after mitigations are applied. This information is presented in tabular form in Table 2-1.

The information in Table 2-1 is arranged in four columns: 1) environmental impacts; 2) level of significance without mitigation; 3) adopted or recommended mitigation measures; and, 4) level of significance with mitigation measures applied.

2.2 Review of Proposed Project Impacts 2.2.1 Aesthetics, Visual Quality, Light and Glare The Proposed Project would be located within the developed area of the Refinery. Construction and operation would not have a substantial adverse effect on aesthetics, visual quality, or light and glare.

• The Proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surrounding area. • The Proposed Project would not impact a scenic vista. • A temporary increase in light and glare would occur during peak construction times, but not to levels that would result in an adverse impact. All impacts to aesthetics, visual quality, and light and glare would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

2.2.2 Air Quality

The Proposed Project would lead to significant impacts on both the local and regional air quality. These would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. • Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including suspended and respirable particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions, which would contribute to existing air quality violations. This would be a potentially significant impact that would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level. • Operations of the Proposed Project would increase air pollutant emissions, contributing to existing air quality violations. Current estimates show that the total net new Proposed Project emissions of NOx, SO2, VOC, and PM10 would not exceed the BAAQMD emissions significance criteria if mitigation measures are implemented. These mitigation measures would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level. • Operation of the Proposed Project could lead to increases in odorous emissions. This would be a less-than-significant impact. • The Proposed Project would contribute to cumulative regional air emissions; however, it would not be cumulatively considerable and it would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. This potentially significant impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by mitigation measures. 2.2.3 Biological Resources The Clean Fuels Expansion Project would cause no potentially significant, unmitigable biological impact. • Proposed sites for project components are currently developed or barren and entirely within the operating Refinery. Placement and construction of project components would have no impact on biological resources of those sites. • Potential impacts to the San Francisco Bay estuary ecosystem, including special status fisheries, could result from introduction of non-indigenous species in ballast water release or through hull fouling for vessels transporting crude oil and products. Overall marine traffic would decrease due to the Proposed Project. Overall ballast water discharge is expected to not change appreciably or may decrease with the Proposed Project. Continued compliance with the Marine Invasive Species Act, and with Coast Guard requirements under the National Invasive Species Act, would minimize risk of introducing non- indigenous species. This impact would be less than significant. • Potential impacts to special status fisheries could result if additional wastewater or pollutant discharges into San Pablo Bay were to occur associated with the Proposed Project. The State Implementation Plan and the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan regulate such discharges through NPDES permits, a principal tool used in protection of aquatic sensitive species and other “beneficial uses” of State water resources. • Potential impacts to special status fisheries could occur with additional water discharges from other non-refinery industrial projects, together with cumulative refinery projects. However, compliance with Refinery NPDES permit conditions would keep this impact less than cumulatively considerable. • Continued compliance with the discharge requirements of the Refinery’s NPDES permit would reduce potential biological impacts of increased pollutant discharge to less-than- significant levels. The Refinery has in place an Oil Spill Contingency and Response Plan,

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

as required by law, that reduces potential impacts of accidental releases to less-than- significant levels. 2.2.4 Cultural Resources Demolition activities, construction and operation of the Proposed Project would have no impact on historical resources, because there are no existing prehistoric or historic resources identified within the Proposed Project area. Excavation and other ground disturbances that would occur during construction of the Proposed Project could affect currently unknown or unidentified archaeological resources or paleontological remains, with the potential to result in significant impacts. However, potential impacts related to construction activities would be reduced to less than significant by standard mitigation measures and regulatory controls. Excavation and other ground disturbances that would occur during construction of the Proposed Project could affect currently unknown or unidentified human remains, with the potential to result in significant impacts. However, potential impacts related to construction activities would be reduced to less than significant by standard mitigation measures and regulatory controls.

The Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative cultural resources impacts. This would be a less-than-significant impact.

2.2.5 Energy Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would increase consumption of electrical energy beyond current levels. However, the Proposed project would increase the amount of electricity and CARB approved fuels, such as gasoline and diesel, produced by the Refinery. For operation, approximately half of the increase in the electrical energy use would be provided by the electricity generated by the Proposed Project. ConocoPhillips is now and will remain a net exporter of electricity.

• The existing energy supply is adequate for construction of the Proposed Project. • Proposed Project operations would increase peak electrical use by approximately 19.8 MW (6.2 MW for operation of the new Hydrogen Plant and 13.6 MW for new Refinery process operations). • The steam turbine generator at the Hydrogen Plant would produce about 10 MW of electricity, which would exceed the 6.2 MW of electrical demand of the new Hydrogen Plant resulting in a 3.8 MW supply to the Refinery. • Proposed Project operations would require purchase of an additional 9.8 MW of electrical power, which would be supplied by PG&E. • The Proposed Project would require installation of a new electrical substation on-site. • No new external electrical transmission lines or natural gas pipelines would be required to deliver natural gas and electricity to the Refinery. The impacts to energy resources are less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

2.2.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity The Proposed Project would have several potential impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity. The environmental effects associated with the implementation of the Proposed Project would be:

• Seismic ground shaking could result in injuries to persons and/or structural damage. • Facilities might be exposed to expansive soils and natural settlement. • Construction could result in soil erosion during excavation and grading. Each of these impacts would be less than significant and no additional mitigation measures would be required.

There are no cumulative impacts that would result from the Proposed Project and the other cumulative, non-refinery projects.

2.2.7 Public Health Exposure to toxic air contaminant emissions can result in health risks to the public. However, the incremental health risks from the Proposed Project would fall below the significance thresholds established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for projects. Since the predicted health risk increments from the Proposed Project would be less than the applicable significance thresholds, the health risk impacts would be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures would be required.

2.2.8 Public Safety Accidents or accidental releases of hazardous substances could result during construction of the Proposed Project. These could create a hazard to the public or the environment through exposure to hazardous materials, through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, or by an increased risk of fatality or serious injury. These impacts would be less than significant.

Accidental releases of acutely hazardous substances may result under the operation of the Proposed Project. These could create a hazard to the public or the environment through exposure to hazardous materials from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. However, the potential releases would not cause an unhealthful offsite impact to occur within the expected 30- year life of the plant. These impacts would therefore be less than significant.

2.2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality The hydrology and water quality effects related to the implementation of the Proposed Project would be less-than-significant impacts and would require no mitigation.

• Solids and pollutants could increase in wastewater effluent discharges to the waters of the Bay due to construction activities. Discharges would be required to meet discharge requirements and control measures established by the Regional Water Quality Control

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-4 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

Board, so construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would not adversely affect surface water quality; • Pollutants, including toxic metal and chemicals, could increase in wastewater effluent discharges to San Pablo Bay due to changes in Refinery process activities. Discharges would be required to meet discharge requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Although there are uncertainties in the amounts of any potential increases, if any, in toxic metal and chemical loadings, the total increased flow of wastewater attributed to the Proposed Project would only be approximately 4 percent of existing discharge amounts. Therefore, the potential impact would be less-than-significant. • The Proposed Project’s direct, and contribution to, cumulative impacts from any potential increases in metal and chemical loading in effluent discharges to receiving waters are less- than-significant due to discharge requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board which are established to protect the entire San Pablo Bay Watershed. 2.2.10 Land Use, Plans and Policies The Proposed Project would be located within the developed area of the Refinery and would not divide an established community. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the Heavy Industry land use designation for the Refinery site and would comply with applicable land use plans and policies. The Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Impacts to land use plans and policies either would be less than significant or would result in no impact. No mitigation measures are required.

2.2.11 Noise The Proposed Project would affect the ambient noise environment during both the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Project.

• Since the Proposed Project would be located on Refinery property, Proposed Project- related noise impacts would primarily affect offsite residential receptors located to the south of the Refinery. Existing daytime ambient noise levels at these residential receptors are in the order of 61–65 dBA, CNEL. Using a noise threshold of 60 dBA and 55 dBA for speech interference during daytime and nighttime, respectively, for construction activities and a 3-dBA increase in CNEL over the existing conditions as the significance threshold for operational activities, the Proposed Project would lead to the following potentially significant, mitigable impacts. • Noise during construction of the Proposed Project would temporarily increase the ambient noise levels at the residential receptors to levels above the daytime and nighttime speech interference thresholds. This impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. • Noise from operation of the proposed Hydrogen Plant could potentially increase noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors by 3 dBA CNEL, which would result in a perceptible noise increase in a residential area already categorized as “conditionally acceptable” for residential land uses under the County General Plan. This impact would be mitigated by establishing a performance noise standard at the property line to be met through the use of engineering and/or operational controls.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-5 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

2.2.12 Public Services The Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to public services, as follows:

• The Proposed Project would have no affect on the ability of the Rodeo- Hercules Fire Department to provide fire suppression and emergency response services to the Refinery or other parts of the community of Rodeo. • The Proposed Project would have no affect on the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department’s ability to provide police protection services to the Refinery and community of Rodeo. • The Proposed Project would have no affect on the John Swett Unified School District to adequately provide educational services to residents of Rodeo. • The Proposed Project would have no affect other public services such as libraries or hospitals. In summary, there would be no impacts to public services.

2.2.13 Transportation The construction phase of the Proposed Project would generate about 1,600 average daily trips, including 80 a.m. peak-hour trips and 762 p.m. peak-hour trips. Most a.m. trips to the Refinery (90%) would be off-peak hours, whereas most p.m. trips would be during peak-hours.

• Proposed Project-generated increases in traffic volumes at area intersections would result in a less-than-significant impact to peak-hour traffic operations. • Proposed Project-generated peak-hour increases in traffic volumes on the I 80 freeway in the Proposed Project area would result in a less-than-significant impact to peak-hour peak direction traffic operations. • Potential overlapping of Proposed Project construction with other construction projects (e.g., the Parker Avenue Improvements Project), with possible increases in temporary and intermittent delays experienced by motorists on area roadways, can be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-2, which specifies that all construction-related traffic shall access the site from the north, using Cummings Skyway to San Pablo Avenue. Construction-related traffic shall not deviate from this route, except in the event that the route is rendered impassable due to accidents or other unanticipated road closures. In the event that this route becomes impassable for an extended period of time, ConocoPhillips shall consult with Contra Costa County to determine an acceptable alternate route. • Potential damage or wear of public roadways due to Proposed Project-generated increases in heavy truck traffic can be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-4, which specifies that both prior to, and after, Proposed Project construction, ConocoPhillips shall document to the satisfaction of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, the road conditions of the construction route that would be used by Proposed Project construction-related vehicles. Roads damaged by construction would be fully repaired by ConocoPhillips to a structural condition equal to that which existed prior to construction activity. Operation of the facilities following Proposed Project construction would add 27 new employees (though not all 27 people would work on the same days), generating up to 22 new trips during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In addition, about 18 new daily truck trips would be generated

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-6 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

because of increased import and export of materials to and from the Refinery. This amount is insignificant when compared to the cumulative traffic volumes at the study area intersections and freeway mainline.

2.2.14 Utilities and Service Systems Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would result in no impacts to the existing public utilities and service systems, including the West County Wastewater District Treatment Facility, except for the less-than-significant impacts that follow:

• Operation of the Proposed Project would increase the use of municipal water from EBMUD. • Construction of the Proposed Project would result in a short-term increase in solid waste disposal and recycling. • Operation of the Proposed Project would result in an insubstantial increase in non- hazardous solid waste and recycled waste produced at the Refinery. The Proposed Project would have no impact or less-than-significant impacts to utility and service systems. No mitigation measures would be required.

2.2.15 Agriculture The Proposed Project would be constructed and operated entirely within the developed area of the ConocoPhillips Refinery. There are no agricultural land uses on or in the vicinity of the Proposed Project site.

The Proposed Project would have no impact to agricultural resources. Thus, no mitigation measures would be required.

2.2.16 Mineral Resources There are no mineral resources within the vicinity of the Refinery that are mapped in the General Plan, a specific plan, or other land use plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that is locally important.

The Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that is classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist and that is therefore a known mineral resource of value to the region and the residents of the state.

In summary, there would be no impacts to existing mineral resources.

2.2.17 Population and Housing Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth, either directly or indirectly.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-7 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would increase population insubstantially by increasing temporary and long-term employment:

• During peak periods, the temporary construction workforce is expected to reach between 480 and 834 workers. • Operation of the Proposed Project would require approximately 27 new full-time employees. The Proposed Project would not displace people or housing.

There would be no impact or less-than-significant impacts to employment, population, or housing. No mitigation would be required.

2.2.18 Parks and Recreation The Proposed Project, located within the developed area of the Refinery, would add approximately 27 workers to the workforce. There are no park or recreation facilities within the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Project.

• The Proposed Project would result in insubstantial increases in workers and in population within the County, and therefore would result in insubstantial increases in the demand for park and recreation facilities. • The Proposed Project would neither include nor result in the need for the construction of additional park or recreation facilities that might have an adverse effect on the environment. • The Proposed Project’s contributions to cumulative impacts on park or recreation facilities would not be considerable. As a result, the Proposed Project would result in no impact or less-than-significant impacts to park or recreation facilities. No mitigation measures would be required.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-8 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS CFEP

Significance Significance Environmental Impact before Mitigation Mitigation Measures after Mitigation

Aesthetics, Visual Quality, Light and Glare 4.1-1: The construction and operations of the Proposed Less than Significant None required. Project would add new equipment and facilities in developed, industrial portions of the Refinery and could degrade the visual character of the local setting from public view corridors such as I-80, a heavily traveled motorway or existing residential areas in the vicinity of the Refinery. Because the new and modified equipment would be similar in size, form and scale, and extent to the existing Refinery equipment, visual change in the appearance of the Refinery would be relatively small. 4.1-2: Proposed Project operations could cause Less than Significant None required. increases in the frequency and/or magnitude of flaring events at the Refinery. These increases could degrade the existing visual character of the Refinery and potentially add to the existing light and glare from the Refinery. 4.1-3: Operation of the Proposed Project could create Less than Significant None required. water vapor plumes visible to surrounding residents and motorists. Steam would be generated as a part of the Proposed Project and used in the proposed process units. In significant frequency, size and duration these water vapor plumes could degrade the existing visual character of the Refinery. 4.1-4: The Proposed Project’s new facilities would add Less than Significant None required. new lighting on site. The new lighting would be similar to the existing lighting at the Refinery, and the overall increase in light from the Proposed Project would be minor and difficult to perceive from beyond the perimeter of the site. 4.1-5: The reasonably foreseeable projects at the Less than Significant None required. Refinery would increase the intensity of the industrial appearance of the overall complex. However, none of the changes associated with individual projects are expected to adversely affect the visual character of the Refinery or surrounding areas.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-9 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS CFEP PROJECT

Significance Significance Environmental Impact before Mitigation Mitigation Measures after Mitigation

Air Quality 4.2-1: Construction activities associated with the Potentially Significant 4.2-1a: During construction, the Applicant shall require Less than Significant Proposed Project would generate short-term emissions of the construction contractor to implement the following criteria pollutants, including suspended and respirable dust control procedures to maintain Proposed Project particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions, construction-related impacts at acceptable levels. which would contribute to existing air quality violations. Construction contractors shall implement the following dust abatement program to reduce the contribution of Proposed Project construction to local PM10 concentrations. Elements of this program (in compliance with BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines) shall include the following: ● Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. ● Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. ● Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. ● Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. ● Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. The following enhanced control measures shall be implemented on construction sites greater than four acres in size: ● Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more. ● Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) ● Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. ● Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. ● Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-10 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS CFEP

Significance Significance Environmental Impact before Mitigation Mitigation Measures after Mitigation

● Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. ● Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time. 4.2-1b: To mitigate equipment exhaust emissions, the Applicant shall require its construction contractors to comply with the following requirements: ● Construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. ● Best management construction practices shall be used to avoid (or limit) unnecessary emissions (e.g., trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues would turn their engines off when not in use). ● Minimize the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to three minutes. ● Use (where feasible) alternative fueled equipment (such as ULSD, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), biodiesel, water emulsion fuel, and electric). Provide the County with documentation that a good faith effort to use alternative-fueled equipment was conducted if it is determined that its use is not feasible. ● Use diesel trucks which are post-1996. ● Use add-on control devices (where feasible) such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters. ● Encourage construction worker commuters to carpool or employ other means to reduce trip generation. ● Allow a substantial portion of the construction workforce to avoid the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods. ● Use on-site power when feasible to reduce reliance on portable generators.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-11 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS CFEP PROJECT

Significance Significance Environmental Impact before Mitigation Mitigation Measures after Mitigation

4.2-2: Operational activities associated with the Potentially Significant 4.2-2a: The Refinery Steam Power Plant uses three Less than Significant implementation of the Proposed Project would increase simple-cycle gas turbines to generate electricity, and uses air pollutant emissions, contributing to existing air quality gas turbine waste heat to generate steam. Each gas violations. Current estimates show that the total net new turbine has a nitrogen oxide (NOx) catalyst system Proposed Project emissions of NOx, SO2, VOC, and located at the base of the exhaust stack. The Refinery PM10 would not exceed the BAAQMD emissions shall take a new permit limit to achieve a reduction of significance criteria with implementation of mitigation NOx concentration in each stack by 1 ppm from its measures. current operating baseline. This 1 ppm of NOx equates to a reduction of 81 pounds per day and 14.7 tons per year. 4.2-2b: Operations at the ConocoPhillips’ Carbon Plant shall be modified to result in a decrease in SO2 emissions of at least 230 pounds per day and 42 tons per year. 4.2-2c: The baghouse at the Carbon Plant shall use improved bag technology to capture particulate matter (PM10) from the calcined coke operation. Installation of the improved bag technology shall reduce PM10 emissions by at least 41 pounds per day and 7.5 tons per year. 4.2-2d: Net reductions in ROG emissions associated with the mitigated Proposed Project shall be used to offset 36 pounds per day and 7.6 tons per year of NOx associated with the Proposed Project. 4.2-3: Operational activities associated with the Less than Significant None required. implementation of the Proposed Project could lead to increases in odorous emissions. 4.2-4: The Proposed Project would contribute to Potentially Significant As discussed in Impact 4.2-2, with the proposed Less than Significant cumulative regional air emissions; however, it would not mitigation measures the Proposed Project would have a be cumulatively considerable and it would not conflict with less-than-significant impact on air quality. Furthermore, or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality as discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use, the Proposed plan. Project is consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan which in turn is consistent with the BAAQMD’s current air quality plan (2005 Ozone Strategy).

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-12 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS CFEP

Significance Significance Environmental Impact before Mitigation Mitigation Measures after Mitigation

Biological Resources 4.3-1: Potential impacts to the San Francisco Bay estuary Less than Significant None required. ecosystem, including special status fisheries, could result from changes in character of Refinery ship traffic of product exports. Sources of potential impacts include introduction of non-indigenous species in ballast water release or through hull fouling. Compliance with the Marine Invasive Species Act and with Coast Guard requirements under the National Invasive Species Act, would minimize risk of introducing non-indigenous species. 4.3-2: Potential impacts to special status fisheries could Less than Significant None required. result if additional wastewater or pollutant discharges into San Pablo Bay were to occur. The State Implementation Plan and the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan regulate such discharges through NPDES permits, a principal tool used in protection of aquatic sensitive species and other “beneficial uses” of State water resources. 4.3-3: Product export ship and barge traffic has a small Less than Significant None required. but present potential to result in accidental releases of toxic materials in San Pablo Bay that may affect the waters there, as well as in the Carquinez Strait and nearby wetlands. Organisms inhabiting aquatic and marsh habitat could be adversely affected by such releases. Net volume of product export would decrease slightly with Proposed Project implementation, thus, the Proposed Project would, at minimum, not increase risk of this impact from current levels. This potential impact would be further reduced by the Refinery’s current Oil Spill Contingency and Response Plan, a measure required by law.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-13 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS CFEP PROJECT

Significance Significance Environmental Impact before Mitigation Mitigation Measures after Mitigation

4.3-4: Impacts to the San Francisco Bay estuary Less than Significant None required. ecosystem, including special status fisheries, could result from changes in cumulative ship traffic that could introduce non-indigenous species in ballast water release or through hull fouling, or from additional pollutant discharges from other non-refinery industrial projects, together with cumulative refinery projects. Compliance with the Marine Invasive Species Act, and with Coast Guard requirements under the National Invasive Species Act, would minimize risk of introducing non-indigenous species and continued compliance with the discharge requirements of the Refinery’s NPDES permit would reduce pollutant discharges. Cultural Resources 4.4-1: Although there are no known archaeological Potentially Significant 4.4-1: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f), Less than Significant resources located at the site and the ground surface has “provisions for historical or unique archaeological been extensively disturbed as a result of past refinery resources accidentally discovered during construction” activities, construction of the Proposed Project could shall be instituted. In the event that any prehistoric or result in adverse impacts to undiscovered archeological historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered resources. during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and ConocoPhillips shall consult with the County and a qualified archaeologist (as approved by the County) to assess the significance of the find per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the County and the qualified archaeologist would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the County would determine whether avoidance is feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) would be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be, at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documented according to current professional standards.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-14 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS CFEP

Significance Significance Environmental Impact before Mitigation Mitigation Measures after Mitigation

4.4-2: Although there are no known paleontological Potentially Significant 4.4-2: ConocoPhillips shall notify both a qualified Less than Significant remains located at the site and the ground surface has paleontologist (as approved by the County) and the been extensively disturbed as a result of past refinery County of unanticipated discoveries. The qualified activities. Even so, construction of the Proposed Project paleontologist, under contract to ConocoPhillips, shall could result in adverse impacts to undiscovered subsequently document the discovery. In the event of an paleontological resources. unanticipated discovery of a fossil or fossilized deposit during construction, excavations within 100 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted until a qualified paleontologist examines the discovery. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. The paleontologist shall oversee implementation of these procedures once they have been determined. 4.4-3: There are no known human remains or burials Potentially Significant 4.4-3: In the event that any prehistoric or historic Less than Significant located at the Proposed Project sites. Although the subsurface human remains are discovered during ground ground surface has been extensively disturbed as a result disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the of past Refinery activities, construction of the Proposed resources shall be halted and ConocoPhillips shall Project could result in adverse impacts to undiscovered consult with the County and a qualified archaeologist (as human remains or burials. approved by the County) to assess the significance of the find per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the County and the qualified archaeologist would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the County would determine whether avoidance is feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) would be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation is carried out. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be, at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documented according to current professional standards. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)(1), below, shall also be followed:

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-15 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS CFEP PROJECT

Significance Significance Environmental Impact before Mitigation Mitigation Measures after Mitigation

(e) In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps should be taken: (1) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: (A) The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and (B) If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American: 1. The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours; 2. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American; 3. The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; or (2) Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-16 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS CFEP

Significance Significance Environmental Impact before Mitigation Mitigation Measures after Mitigation

(A) The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the Commission; (B) The identified descendant fails to make a recommendation; or (C) The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. 4.4-4: The Proposed Project, together with proposed and Less than Significant None required. planned future development at the Proposed Project site and in the surrounding area, would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative cultural resources impacts. Energy 4.5-1: The construction and operation of the Proposed Less than Significant None required. Project could result in wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. 4.5-2: The Proposed Project together with proposed and Less than Significant None required. planned future development at the Refinery and in the area in general, could result in a cumulative impact to energy resources. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 4.6-1: Strong seismic ground shaking from a major Less than Significant None required. earthquake in the region could potentially injure persons at the Proposed Project site due to structural damage of facility structures. Strong ground shaking could potentially expose persons and property to seismic-related hazards, including seismic-related ground failure, localized liquefaction and seismically-induced settlement. 4.6-2: Construction of the Proposed Project could result Less than Significant None required. in soil erosion during excavation, grading, and construction activities.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-17 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS CFEP PROJECT

Significance Significance Environmental Impact before Mitigation Mitigation Measures after Mitigation

4.6-3: The Proposed Project could be located on a Less than Significant None required. geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. 4.6-4: Proposed construction could experience damage Less than Significant None required. from expansive soils and natural settlement. Public Health 4.7-1: Construction activities from the Proposed Project Less than Significant None required. would increase emissions of TACs, mainly from diesel- operated equipment. Modeling these emissions indicates that predicted offsite concentrations of TACs would be less than the CEQA significance threshold. 4.7-2: Public exposure to TAC emissions from operations Less than Significant None required. of the Proposed Project would result in an increase in health risks. The increases in health risks would result from exposure to carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic substances. The magnitudes of both the noncancer and cancer risks fall below the identified significance criteria values. 4.7-3: Public exposure to toxic air contaminant (TAC) Less than Significant None required. emissions from the Proposed Project and from other projects or cumulative development could result in a slight increase in health risks in the region. Public Safety 4.8-1: Possible accidents or accidental releases of Less than Significant None required. hazardous substances could result during construction of the Proposed Project. These could create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, or by an increased risk of fatality or serious injury. 4.8-2: Accidental releases of acutely hazardous Less than Significant None required. substances may result under the operation of the Proposed Project. These could create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, or by an increased risk of fatality or serious injury.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-18 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS CFEP

Significance Significance Environmental Impact before Mitigation Mitigation Measures after Mitigation

4.8-3: A potential exists that accidents at various Less than Significant None required. industrial facilities could interact with accidents at the Refinery in a way that could create a cumulative hazard to the public or the environment from hazardous materials. The contribution from the Proposed Project would not be cumulatively considerable. Hydrology and Water Quality 4.9-1: The Proposed Project could result in an increase of Less than Significant None required. pollutants, including toxic metals and chemicals, in the process wastewater stream and in effluent discharges to receiving waters. 4.9-2: Construction activities could generate wastewater Less than Significant None required. and storm water runoff volumes that could increase wastewater or combined inflows into the wastewater treatment plant. This increase would not result in an exceedance of the available hydraulic and/or treatment capacity of the wastewater treatment plant or an exceedances of the effluent limits of the existing NPDES permit. 4.9-3: The accumulative wastewater flows from the Less than Significant None required. Proposed Project and wastewater flows, storm water flows, and atmospheric deposition from point and nonpoint sources within the vicinity of the Proposed Project could increase pollutant discharges to San Pablo Bay. The increased contribution of the Proposed Project would not be cumulatively considerable. Land Use, Plans and Policies 4.10-1: The Proposed Project would be in general Less than Significant None required. conformance with applicable regional or local plans and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. There would be the potential for some inconsistencies between the construction and operation of the Proposed Project and applicable regional plans and policies. 4.10-2: The Proposed Project, together with proposed Less than Significant None required. and planned future development at the Refinery and in the surrounding area, would not conflict with adopted plans, so the Proposed Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative land use impact.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-19 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS CFEP PROJECT

Significance Significance Environmental Impact before Mitigation Mitigation Measures after Mitigation

Noise 4.11-1: Operation of equipment to be installed as part of Less than Significant None required. the Proposed Project could result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan. 4.11-2: Operation of equipment to be installed as part of Less than Significant None required. the Proposed Project could result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Proposed Project vicinity above levels existing without the Proposed Project. 4.11-3: Construction activities associated with the Potentially Significant 4.11-3a: Construction contractors shall be required to Less than Significant Proposed Project would intermittently and temporarily ensure that construction equipment is well tuned and generate noise levels above existing ambient levels in the maintained according to the manufacturer’s Proposed Project vicinity over the duration of the specifications, and that the equipment’s standard noise construction period. reduction devices are in good working order. 4.11-3b: To minimize noise impacts to Bayo Vista and Rodeo during Proposed Project construction, all construction-related traffic shall access the site from the north, using Cummings Skyway to San Pablo Avenue. Construction-related traffic shall not deviate from this route, except in the event that the route is rendered impassable due to accidents or other unanticipated road closures. In the event that this route becomes impassable for an extended period of time, ConocoPhillips shall consult with Contra Costa County to determine an acceptable alternate route. 4.11-4: The Proposed Project together with proposed and Less than Significant None required. planned future development at the Refinery, nearby refineries, and in Rodeo in general, could result in cumulative increase in noise levels. Public Services 4.12-1: The Proposed Project together with proposed and Less than Significant None required. planned future development at the Refinery would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impact to public services.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-20 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS CFEP

Significance Significance Environmental Impact before Mitigation Mitigation Measures after Mitigation

Transportation 4.13-1: Proposed Project-generated increases in traffic Less than Significant None required. volumes at intersections in the Proposed Project area would result in a less-than-significant impact to peak-hour traffic operations. 4.13-2: Proposed Project construction could overlap with Potentially Significant 4.13-2: To minimize cumulative traffic impacts to area Less than Significant other construction projects, which could have the effect of roadways during construction, ConocoPhillips or increasing temporary and intermittent delays experienced contractor(s), shall direct that all construction traffic shall by motorists on area roadways. access the site from the north, using Cummings Skyway to San Pablo Avenue, unless such access is unavailable due to accidents or road closure. 4.13-3: Proposed Project-generated increases in traffic Less than Significant None required. volumes on the I-80 freeway in the Proposed Project area would result in a less-than-significant impact to peak-hour peak-direction operations. 4.13-4: Proposed Project-generated increases in heavy Potentially Significant 4.13-4: Prior to commencement of Proposed Project Less than Significant truck traffic on area roadways could result in substantial construction activities, which include any construction- damage or wear of public roadways. related deliveries to the site, ConocoPhillips shall document to the satisfaction of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, the road conditions of the construction route that would be used by Proposed Project construction-related vehicles. ConocoPhillips shall also document the construction route road conditions after Proposed Project construction has been completed. ConocoPhillips shall repair roads damaged by construction to County standards and to a structural condition equal to that which existed prior to construction activity. As a security to ensure that damaged roads are adequately repaired, ConocoPhillips shall make an initial $250,000 deposit to an account to be used for roadway rehabilitation or reconstruction. If the County must ultimately undertake the road repairs, and repair costs exceed $250,000, then ConocoPhillips shall pay the additional amount necessary to fully repair the roads to pre-construction conditions.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-21 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS CFEP PROJECT

Significance Significance Environmental Impact before Mitigation Mitigation Measures after Mitigation

4.13-5: Under cumulative conditions, operation of the Less than Significant None required. Refinery would generate up to 22 new a.m. peak-hour trips, and up to 22 new p.m. peak-hour trips. In addition, about 18 new daily truck trips would be generated because of increased import and export of materials to and from the Refinery. This amount is insignificant when compared to the cumulative traffic volumes at the study area intersections and freeway mainline. Utilities and Service Systems 4.14-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would Less than Significant None required. increase use of raw water from EBMUD, which has indicated that there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. 4.14-2: The solid waste generated from Proposed Project Less than Significant None required. construction and operation would be directed to landfills. Almost all of the additional solid waste would be directed to Keller Canyon Landfill, which has sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Proposed Project’s solid waste disposal needs. 4.14-3: The Proposed Project together with proposed and Less than Significant None required. planned future development at the Refinery and in the area in general, would result in increased water use and increased generation of solid waste. Although other cumulative industrial, commercial and residential development in the vicinity and in the County could result in similar increases in cumulative water use and solid waste generation, as well as impacts to the full range of Utilities and Service Systems categories, the contribution of the Proposed Project to these cumulative effects would not be cumulatively considerable. Agricultural Resources No agricultural resource impacts identified. Mineral Resources No mineral resource impacts identified.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-22 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts

TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS CFEP

Significance Significance Environmental Impact before Mitigation Mitigation Measures after Mitigation

Population, and Housing 4.17-1: Construction and operation of the Proposed Less than Significant None required. Project could directly induce temporary and permanent population growth. Construction of the Proposed Project would likely lead to a temporary influx of construction workers to the Bay Area and operation of the Proposed Project would require approximately 27 long-term workers, all of which could be new residents. 4.17-2: The Proposed Project would contribute to Less than Significant None required. temporary and permanent increases in population and associated increases in the demand for housing. However, the contributions would be so insignificant that they would not be cumulatively considerable. Parks and Recreation 4.18-1: The Proposed Project would lead to temporary Less than Significant None required. and permanent population increases. This in turn would lead to increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities. However, because the population increases would be insignificant, the associated increases in the use of parks and recreational facilities would also be insignificant and would not result in substantial or accelerated physical deterioration. 4.18-2: The Proposed Project would make a contribution Less than Significant None required. to cumulative increases in use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. However, because the direct increases in use would be insubstantial, the Proposed Project’s contributions to parks use would not be cumulatively considerable.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 2-23 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report CHAPTER 3 Project Description

3.1 Project Overview and Location 3.1.1 Introduction The ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery (Refinery), also known as the San Francisco Refinery, in Rodeo, California, has been continuously operating at its present site since it was originally built by Union Oil Company in February 1896. In 1997, Union Oil Company sold the San Francisco Refinery along with other assets to Tosco Corporation. Phillips Petroleum Company acquired Tosco in 2001 and subsequently merged with Conoco Inc. in 2002 to form ConocoPhillips. The Refinery consists of refining process units and support units. The principal activity of the Refinery is the manufacturing of transportation fuels; the facility converts crude oil and other feedstock into gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel. Byproducts of the Refinery include sulfur and petroleum coke.

The Clean Fuels Expansion Project (CFEP) (or the “Proposed Project”) would add new facilities and modify existing facilities to produce additional clean fuels. The Refinery would use the Heavy Gas Oil (HGO) that is normally produced at the Refinery and is currently sold into the HGO market, to produce cleaner-burning gasoline and ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuels targeted for the California market or fuel oil for the global market. Overall, Refinery production following implementation of the Proposed Project would increase by up to approximately 1,000,000 gallons/day or 30 percent over current Refinery production levels. Gasoline production is expected to increase by up to approximately 791,000 gallons per day or 35 percent over current levels. Diesel and jet fuel production is expected to increase by up to approximately 290,000 gallons per day or 21.5 percent over current levels.

Cleaner-burning gasoline is fuel that meets requirements established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). All gasoline sold in California for use in motor vehicles must meet these requirements, which have been in effect since 1996.

In addition to increasing cleaner-burning gasoline production, the Proposed Project would increase the production of ULSD. As of June 1, 2006, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the CARB Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, requires that the sulfur content in

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

motor vehicle diesel fuel be reduced to less than 15 parts per million. ConocoPhillips currently produces ULSD and with the Proposed Project would produce more ULSD1.

The Proposed Project would also include a new Hydrogen Plant that would make the additional hydrogen required to produce additional clean fuels. The Hydrogen Plant is planned to be constructed and operated by a third party who would own and operate the facility. The Hydrogen Plant would be constructed concurrently with the other components of the Proposed Project. The Hydrogen Plant would use process streams supplied by the Refinery and would produce steam and electricity as well as hydrogen for use in Refinery processes.

The Proposed Project would be constructed on existing Refinery property, all of which is zoned for heavy industrial use. When operating, the Proposed Project would add approximately 12 new permanent Refinery employees, and approximately 15 new permanent employees at the new Hydrogen Plant (discussed below).

The Proposed Project construction is anticipated to begin in December 2006. Final tie-ins and modifications to existing process units would be scheduled to take place during Refinery turnarounds planned for the third quarter of 2008. Startup would begin during the third quarter of 2008.

3.1.2 Location The Refinery is located in unincorporated Contra Costa County, near the community of Rodeo. Figure 3-1 shows the property boundaries of the Refinery. The Refinery encompasses a total of 1,100 acres of land, consisting of a 495-acre active area of the Refinery, where all its facilities and equipment are located, and another 600 acres of undeveloped land.

The Refinery is bordered by the Valero Terminal to the north, an undeveloped area to the east, the Bayo Vista residential area (beyond a 300- to 600-foot undeveloped buffer area between the active or developed portion of the Refinery and adjacent land uses) to the south, and San Pablo Bay to the west (see Figure 3-2). Interstate Highway 80 (I-80) and San Pablo Avenue run in a north-south direction through the Refinery’s property.

Project components would occupy approximately 9 acres of the 495-acre Refinery at various locations. The Proposed Project would include changes to the Hydrocracker (Unit 2402), also known as the Unicracker, and associated units, located in the central area of the Refinery. Additionally, a new Sulfur Recovery Unit (Unit 235) would be constructed on the east side of the Refinery, adjacent and south of the existing Sulfur Recovery Plant (Units 234, 236, and 238). The

1 The specific amount of the potential increase of ULSD fuel resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project is not foreseeable and is dependent on market forces. However, the ULSD production increase would be some variable portion of the approximately 290,000 gallons per day or 21.5 percent over current production levels of diesel and jet fuel that would occur with the Proposed Project changes. 2 Note that while the existing Unit 240 is not identified on Figure 3-3, it is at the same location as the new Unit 246, which is identified on Figure 3-3.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report SANTA ROSA VACAVILLE NAPA 101 FAIRFIELD 80

NOVATO VALLEJO STUDY

AREA SAN RAFAEL RICHMOND CONCORD WALNUT BERKELEY CREEK

OAKLAND 680

SAN ALAMEDA SAN FRANCISCO RAMON

580 DALY CITY HAYWARD

280 FREMONT SAN MATEO 880 Pacific Ocean REDWOOD CITY

MOUNTAIN 101 VIEW 280 SAN JOSE

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

Crockett

80 Valero PG&E

Bayo Vista

Rodeo

Viewpointe

Mile ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project SOURCE: ESA Figure 3-1 Regional Location CONOCOPHILIPS CARBON PLANT

ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project SOURCE: ESA Figure 3-2 Refinery Boundary and Vicinity 3. Project Description

new Hydrogen Plant would be constructed on the west side of the Refinery adjacent to San Pablo Avenue. The new butane loading rack will be located near the western shore line of the Refinery just west of the long wharf at the Refinery within an existing rail loading facility (see Figure 3-3). 3.2 Project Objectives and Components 3.2.1 Project Objectives The Refinery is a modern refining facility that currently processes a range of raw materials into gasoline, ULSD, HGO, and related byproducts for resale in California and other markets. The Proposed Project is intended to meet future market demand for California-grade transportation fuel products.

The objective of the Proposed Project is to increase production of clean-burning gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel from HGO for the California market by upgrading the Refinery’s capability to process HGO. The economic and environmental benefits of the Proposed Project include:

• Allowing for increased production of clean gasoline and diesel fuel – This is particularly important considering that the projected increased demand for gasoline in California is two to four times the increase of projected supplies, as shown in Figure 3-4. The Proposed Project would provide for a substantial increase in gasoline production at the Refinery by adding capability to process HGO into consumer motor fuels for the California market.

• Reducing shipping of gas oil by barge over the Marine Terminal – Gas oil is a product that is used primarily for marine fuel or is shipped to other refineries as process feed. The Proposed Project would enable ConocoPhillips to process the gas oil at the Rodeo site. This would eliminate approximately 133 barges per year and four marine vessels per year that currently transport this product from the Refinery. Other modes of transportation of Refinery products would be either increased or decreased as a result of the implementation of the Proposed Project. (See Table 3-5 for a listing of this product transportation.)

• Upgrading equipment for improved efficiency, reliability, and safety in operations – Refinery equipment upgrades are necessary to maintain efficient and safe operations. Upgrades include a new Sulfur Recovery Unit with an amine-based tail gas treating unit, modifications to the existing amine and sour water stripper system, new hydrogen production technology, and shutdown of one older steam generator.

• Constructing new Hydrogen Plant – In addition to the benefits of efficiency, reliability and safety features, the new Hydrogen Plant would be constructed and operated so that it initially produces only the quantity of hydrogen that ConocoPhillips needs to produce clean fuels. However, the Hydrogen Plant would be designed with surplus capacity so that, in the future, hydrogen could be supplied to other customers as an alternative clean fuel. Hydrogen produced from these types of plants has the potential to meet the anticipated transportation demands associated with hydrogen fuel cell technology.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-5 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 0 500

Feet ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project SOURCE: ConocoPhillips Figure 3-3 Locations of Site Modifications 3. Project Description

ConocoPhillips CFEP Project SOURCE: ConocoPhillips, 2005 Figure 3-4 Projected Gasoline plus Diesel Demand 3.2.2 Project Component List

ConocoPhillips has submitted an application for a Land Use Permit (LUP) to the Contra Costa County Community Development Department for the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would modify and install various refining equipment including piping, heat exchangers, instrumentation, catalytic reactors, fractionation equipment, pumps, compressors, furnaces, and their associated facilities. These changes would include installation of new facilities as well as minor changes to existing facilities. Project components are summarized in Table 3-1 and are described in more detail in Section 3.4. 3.3 Existing ConocoPhillips Refinery 3.3.1 Basic Refinery Processes Refineries process crude oil into usable products, such as gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, fuel oil, or Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). To produce these products, various process units in a refinery perform one or several of four fundamental functions: • Separation; • Conversion; • Purification; and • Blending.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-7 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

TABLE 3-1 SUMMARY OF CLEAN FUELS EXPANSION PROJECT COMPONENTS

Refinery Process Unit Proposed Change

Unicracker Increase existing production capacity from 42,000 to 65,000 barrels per day. (Unit 240 and new Unit 246) Add Heavy Gas Oil heater, heat exchangers, compressors, separators, reactors, stripper, vacuum flasher, and other miscellaneous equipment. Reformer (Unit 244) Increase capacity to 18,500 barrels per day by changing pumps, valves, and heat exchangers. May modify or replace existing reactor(s). This analysis assumes reactors would be modified and / or replaced. UNISAR (Unit 248) Increase capacity to 16,740 barrels per day by changing pumps, valves, and heat exchangers. Product Blending (Unit 76) Add or change pumps, valves, and interconnecting piping. Deisobutanizer (Unit 215 DIB) Increase capacity to 10,200 barrels per day by changing or adding pumps, valves, and heat exchangers. New Sulfur Recovery Unit Add new Sulfur Recovery Unit with additional capacity of approximately (Unit 235) 200 long tons per day. Components include a 3-stage Claus plant, amine tail gas treating unit (TGTU) and thermal incinerator, and a new Claus plant sulfur pit or tank. New Sulfur Degassing Unit Sulfur from the new Sulfur Recovery Unit and each of the existing Sulfur Recovery Units would be pumped to a new Sulfur Degassing Unit. Degassed sulfur would be stored in a new above-ground common sulfur storage tank that would route sulfur to a new sulfur truck-loading rack. New Sulfur Truck Loading Rack Replace existing sulfur truck-loading rack with a new sulfur truck-loading rack. Sulfur Recovery Unit (Unit 234) Modify or replace one amine stripper and modify existing sour water stripper Sulfur Recovery Unit (Unit 236) system, which may include adding one additional sour water stripper. Sulfur Recovery Unit (Unit 238) New Butane Rail Add new butane rail-loading facility or modify existing loading facility for railcar Loading Facility loading of butane. The facility would include new piping, valves, connections, access structures, and loading arm. An existing rail spur may be modified. Auxiliary Equipment New piping, including valves, pumps, and tie-ins to process units, relief systems, and product storage. Unit 240 B-1 Boiler Shut down. New Hydrogen Plant (Unit 120) New Steam Methane Reformer (SMR), SMR furnace, hydrogen/SynGas safety flare, steam turbine/generator, cooling water tower, new 19% aqueous ammonia tank, and water treatment system.

Additionally, refineries require a number of supporting processes and equipment to provide energy and raw materials as well as to manage and treat wastes.

3.3.1.1 Separation To carry out the process of separation, the Refinery takes advantage of the fact that individual hydrocarbon3 molecules boil at different temperatures (at a specified pressure) according to the size of their molecules. As a result, a mixture of various compounds contained in a single feed stream, such as crude oil, can be separated using a distillation column or fractionator where the temperature decreases from the bottom to the top of the column. The smaller hydrocarbon molecules rise to the top of the column as gases. The heavier hydrocarbons fall to the bottom of

3 Technical terms shown in italics, here and throughout the text, are described more fully in the Glossary, Chapter 8.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-8 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

the column as liquids. With distillation, mixed feed stocks in crude oil can be separated into distinct hydrocarbon streams or fractions.

At petroleum refineries, the first main processing step is to remove inorganic impurities from crude oil and then separate it into several distinct hydrocarbon streams using atmospheric and vacuum distillation columns. The separation process is used at many other refinery units in fractionators and splitters to separate various products into distinct hydrocarbon streams.

3.3.1.2 Conversion After the initial separation of crude oil has occurred, fractions created from distillation are routed to process units that convert molecules into molecules more desirable for blending into finished products. Conversion of molecules is accomplished by two primary processes - cracking and reforming.

The process of cracking breaks large and cyclic molecules into smaller compounds that possess chemical and physical properties better-suited for the finished product. Cracking at most refineries is performed at catalytic cracking units, and coking units. Catalytic cracking units use catalysts to induce chemical transformations to smaller molecules. Hydrocracking units are a class of cracking units that use hydrogen, high temperature and pressure, and catalysts to achieve the desired molecular conversions. Coking units use high temperature to induce thermal cracking.

The process of reforming transforms the shape of hydrocarbon molecules. Process units such as catalytic reformers, isomerization units, and alkylation units rearrange a compound’s chemical structure without significant cracking or breaking of molecules. These reforming process units create a high percentage of final blending components for gasoline.

3.3.1.3 Purification It is necessary to remove impurities from fractions of gasoline and diesel prior to processing or blending them into finished products. Purification includes the removal of undesirable components such as hydrogen sulfide, sulfur, and nitrogen compounds. Purification is accomplished in units called hydrotreaters, where a mixture of hydrocarbons and hydrogen are heated together and then fed to a reaction chamber containing a catalyst. When the hydrocarbon and hydrogen molecules come in contact with the catalyst, a chemical reaction occurs that converts sulfur and nitrogen molecules bound in hydrocarbon molecules to hydrogen sulfide and ammonia gases. These gases are separated from the hydrocarbon liquids and are sent to the Sulfur Recovery Plant where the sulfides are converted to elemental sulfur, which is sold as a product, and the ammonia is converted to nitrogen.

3.3.1.4 Blending After separating, converting, and purifying, the final refinery process is blending. The blending process involves numerous streams from storage tanks and process vessels that are mixed (blended) into finished products. The final products contain the correct chemical and physical properties specified for each fuel.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-9 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

3.3.1.5 Supporting Processes Refineries require support processes that provide utilities such as cooling water, electricity, steam, and hydrogen for production. Cogeneration facilities provide continuous electric power and steam to the Refinery, which operates 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Numerous boilers and furnaces are used throughout the facility to generate steam and heat for process units. On-site support facilities supply raw materials such as hydrogen and oxygen used in refining.

Refineries must manage the liquid and solid wastes generated in the refining of fuel products. Wastewater treatment systems manage the process water discharged in the Refinery and manage storm water collected in the facility. The Refinery must comply with environmental regulations limiting the levels of organic and inorganic chemicals in wastewater discharge.

Refineries also operate systems to recover those hydrocarbons that are mixed with liquid and solid wastes. The recovered hydrocarbons are recycled back to the crude unit to make useful products.

Solid wastes are collected onsite and then sent for appropriate offsite disposal.

3.3.2 Existing Refinery Processes and Facilities The flow of input and product streams though the major processing units of the Refinery is shown schematically in the Block Flow Diagram, Figure 3-5. The existing processes and units at the Refinery include the following units, as shown on Figure 3-5:

• Crude Unit (Unit 267); • Crude/Delayed Coker Unit (Unit 200); • Unicracker Complex (Units 240, 244 and 248); • ULSD Hydrotreating Unit (Unit 250); • Hydrotreater-Reformer Complex (Units 229, 230, and 231); • Hydrogen Plant (Unit 110); • Deisobutanizer (Unit 215 DIB); • Fuel Gas Center (Unit 233); • Product Blending (Unit 76); • Sour Water Strippers, Amine Regenerators, and Sulfur Recovery Plant (Units 234, 236 and 238, respectively); • Cogeneration Plant; • Isomerization Unit (Unit 228).

Other units that are important to the operation of the Refinery, but which are not shown on Figure 3-5, are: • Pressure Relief System and Flares; • Wastewater Treatment Plant; • Tank Farm; and • Import/Export Facilities - Truck, Rail, Pipeline, and Marine Terminal.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-10 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report Iso Butane to Sales Mixed Butanes from U 240 & U 231 Lt U215 To H2 Plt Feed Naphtha DIB Mixed Butanes Normal To Fuel or Sales U215 Butane Med To Blending U267 Naphtha Gas Frac Lt Naphtha Crude/ U229 iC5 to Lt Dsl to Vac U200 Lt Naph U228 Gaso Blending ULSD HT Light Crude C5/C6 Naphtha Isom Isomerate to Fuel Electricity Hvy Dsl to HT Gaso Blending SPP C5/C6 Steam ULSD HT Water Cogen U230 Gas Oil to U230 Medium U231 To Gaso U240 De- U200 Med Naph Naphtha Reformer Blending Hex HT U76 HT Product To Naphtha Natural Gas Sales U267 Blending Hydrogen Diesel U250 Butane / Pentane U110 U267 Resid U200 Diesel H2 Plant to U200 VT Atmospheric Tower ULSD To Diesel Water Gasoline U240 HT Blending Prefrac OH

SCT Diesel U267 VGO LUK to Gaso U200 Blending U233 H2S Crude/ SRGO Sour Gas Coker Coker Fuel Fuel Gas Vac U200 Gasoline Diesel Center Diluted SRGO Crude U200 U244 To Gaso VTHGO LCGO MUK LCGO Reformer Blending SMGO U240 VT Botts U200 U240 SC1 Outside Uni- Coker Gas Oil Prefrac Sulfur cracker HUK To Dsl Hydrogen Sulfide Sulfur SC2 U248 Blending Recovery HCGO Unisar or Jet Units

PFB PFB UCO to Diesel Blending Light products to Fractionation

HCGO To Sales To Diesel Blending or Jet Refinery Gas SC2 New VTHGO Butane / Pentane Uni- New HYDROGEN LS HGO to Sales Natural Gas cracker H2 Plant Water HS HGO to Sales

ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project SOURCE: ConocoPhillips Figure 3-5 San Francisco Refinery Block Flow Diagram After CFEP Modifications 3. Project Description

In addition to the existing equipment, the new Hydrogen Plant and the new Unicracker, major units that are proposed to be installed as part of the Proposed Project, are shown also on Figure 3-5, in bold outline.

3.3.2.1 Crude Unit The Crude Distillation (Unit 267) heats crude oil and separates by atmospheric and vacuum distillation several of the compounds into various fractions that serve as feedstock for subsequent processing units. The products from the crude unit are light naphtha, heavy naphtha, diesel, gas oil, and a thick material called residuum.

The Gasoline Fractionation Unit (Unit 215) distills the light naphtha fraction from Unit 267. The naphtha fractions from Unit 267 and Unit 215 (i.e., gasoline intermediates) are further processed into gasoline blendstocks at the Hydrotreating –Reformer Complex (Units 229, 230, and 231) and the Isomerization Unit (Unit 228).

The existing light and heavy diesel streams from Unit 267 are combined at the unit and sent to storage before processing in the ULSD Hydrotreating Unit (Unit 250). Gas oil becomes feed to the Unicracker and residuum becomes feed to the Delayed Coker Unit.

3.3.2.2 Crude/Delayed Coker Unit Heavy crude oil and semi-refined crude oil are distilled in the crude distillation section of the Crude/Delayed Coker Unit (Unit 200) to produce cracked heavy naphtha, diesel, light gas oil, heavy gas oil, and heavy residuum. The coking process converts heavy residuum into cracked heavy naphtha, diesel, light and heavy gas oils, and other fuels. The residuum is exposed to high temperatures in coke drums where thermal cracking occurs. These high temperatures cause the residuum to decompose and form naphtha, diesel, light and heavy gas oils, fuel gas, and petroleum coke. Petroleum coke is either sold or transported offsite for further processing. Naphtha, diesel, and gas oils are further processed at other Refinery units.

3.3.2.3 Unicracker Complex The Unicracker Complex processes gas oils into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. The Refinery processes that make up the Unicracker Complex include the Unicracker and Hydrogen Plant (Unit 240), Catalytic Reformer (Unit 244), and UNISAR4 Hydrotreating Unit (Unit 248). The Unicracker uses heat, hydrogen, and a catalyst to convert gas oils into gasoline blendstocks and distillate (jet fuel and diesel) blendstocks. The catalytic reformer can increase the octane rating of the naphtha feed by up to 30 octane number units. The UNISAR (Unit 248) refines the burning characteristics of jet fuel distillate stock produced by the Unicracker to reduce exhaust smoke.

Heavy gas oil streams from Unit 200 and HGO purchased from outside of the Refinery are fractionated in the Unit 240 prefractionator. Sour naphtha goes to Unit 250 for further processing.

4 UNISAR is a trade name and not an acronym.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-12 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

Light gas oil becomes feed to the Unicracker. Heavy gas oil is sold outside of the Refinery, and residuum is fed to the Delayed Coker (Unit 200).

3.3.2.4 ULSD Hydrotreating Unit The recently constructed ULSD Hydrotreater (Unit 250) is a diesel hydrotreater designed to desulfurize sour diesel produced in the Crude Distillation and Crude/Delayed Coker Units (Unit 267 and Unit 200). This unit produces a diesel-blending product containing less than 15 parts per million by weight of sulfur and includes blending facilities to produce finished diesel product that meets ULSD specifications.

The ULSD Hydrotreater produces other intermediate products, including naphtha, which is processed in the Naphtha Hydrotreater (Unit 230), and light gases, which are sent to the fuel gas treating system (Unit 233).

3.3.2.5 Hydrotreating – Reformer Complex The Naphtha Hydrotreaters (Units 229 and 230) remove sulfur and nitrogen contaminants from the light- and medium-range gasoline blendstock streams produced by the Delayed Coker (Unit 200) and the Crude Distillation Unit (Unit 267). This is achieved by combining the streams with hydrogen and passing them across a catalyst bed. The treated light-range gasoline can be processed by the Isomerization Unit or blended directly into gasoline. The medium-range gasoline is further processed in the Catalytic Reformer (Unit 231) to produce a high-octane gasoline blend stock. During this catalytic reforming process, hydrogen is released and returned to the Hydrotreaters.

3.3.2.6 Isomerization Unit The Isomerization Unit (Unit 228) rearranges straight-chain hydrocarbon molecules into branched-chain molecules by applying heat and adding hydrogen in the presence of a precious metal catalyst. This rearrangement increases the octane rating of the intermediate streams. The isomerized product from this unit is a key reformulated gasoline blending stock that is low in benzene and relatively high in octane rating.

3.3.2.7 Product Blending Product Blending (Unit 76) mixes blending stocks and additives to meet consumer product specifications for unleaded gasoline and diesel. The blender is a computer-controlled pumping facility that controls the rate at which each blendstock is pumped into the final blend. The blend is monitored during the blending operation by online analyzers, and samples of the resulting blend are analyzed in the laboratory. The final blend is stored in product storage tanks before being transported offsite.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-13 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

3.3.2.8 Sulfur Recovery Plant, Amine Systems and Sour Water Strippers

The existing Sulfur Recovery Plant (Units 234, 236, and 238) processes hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and ammonia, from the amine systems and sour water strippers. The amine systems remove H2S from sour gas and refinery fuel gas. The sour water strippers remove H2S and ammonia from process water streams.

The existing Sulfur Recovery Units use the Claus Sulfur Recovery process followed by the

Beavon Stretford process to convert almost all of the H2S to elemental sulfur. The product, molten liquid sulfur, is exported off site. The ammonia present in the feed gases is converted to nitrogen.

Claus Sulfur Recovery

In a Claus Sulfur Recovery Unit, the H2S-containing acid gases pass through a high temperature reaction furnace thermal conversion section where H2S is burned with a carefully controlled amount of air and oxygen to yield the optimum ratio of H2S to sulfur dioxide (SO2) for conversion to elemental sulfur. Sulfur Recovery Units 236 and 238 were modified recently in the ULSD project to add low-level oxygen enrichment technology. Oxygen-enrichment means that oxygen is added to air for combustion with the resulting oxygen concentration in the combustion gas being greater than the 21 percent oxygen concentration found in ambient air.

The H2S and SO2 gases then pass through three catalytic conversion sections where SO2 and H2S react in the presence of an alumina catalyst to form elemental sulfur and water vapor. At the three conversion section discharges, the hot sulfur vapor is condensed and collected in sulfur pits.

About 97 percent of the H2S is converted to liquid sulfur and the balance of the gas is further treated by the Tail Gas Treatment Unit.

Ammonia and hydrocarbons in the Claus Sulfur Recovery feed stream are also combusted into nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water in the reaction furnace.

Tail Gas Treatment Unit In the Beavon Stretford Tail Gas Treatment Unit (TGTU), tail gas from the Claus plant is heated, mixed with hydrogen and passed over a special hydrogenation catalyst. Elemental sulfur and SO2 react with hydrogen to form H2S and water. Carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide, byproducts formed in the Claus thermal section, react with water to form H2S and carbon dioxide.

The Refinery currently uses the Stretford process to process the H2S in the tail gas. H2S is absorbed in a gas/liquid contactor into the Stretford solution and reacts with the Stretford catalyst to form elemental sulfur. The Stretford solution is regenerated by air sparging, which also floats the elemental sulfur in the slurry. The froth of sulfur slurry is concentrated by a filter press to form sulfur cake. The sulfur cake’s high vanadium content results in this material being classified as a California hazardous waste.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-14 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

3.3.2.9 Pressure Relief Systems and Flares The Refinery has a safety system designed to protect Refinery operators and equipment in case a Refinery vessel becomes over-pressurized. Each vessel is connected to a piping system that would discharge gas and liquid to a relief and blowdown system to prevent excessive pressure from building up in vessels.

Flares are first and foremost devices to ensure the safety of Refinery operations and personnel. They also serve as emission control mechanisms for Refinery blowdown systems. Blowdown systems collect and separate liquid and gaseous discharges from various process units and equipment throughout the Refinery. They also collect gases that are the normal byproducts of a process unit or vessel depressurization, or that may result from an upset in a process unit, or that come from Refinery process units during startup and shutdown, or when the balance between gas generation and the combustion of that gas for process heat is disrupted.

Blowdown systems generally recover liquids and send gases to the fuel gas system for use in refinery combustion. However, when the heating value of the gas stream is insufficient or when the stream exceeds the Refinery’s capacity to safely use the gas stream to satisfy Refinery combustion needs, the flare is used to combust these gases and prevent their direct uncontrolled release to the atmosphere. Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations require that flow data from all flaring events be reported monthly. These data are publicly available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/enf/flares/.

The Refinery relief and blowdown system provides a means to recover gases and liquids that are relieved by the process units to maintain safe operating pressures. Gases and liquids flow through the relief and blowdown lines to accumulators and liquid knockout drums. The system is designed with a low pressure liquid seal and vapor recovery compressor to recover these gases and liquids. If the capacity of the recovery system is exceeded, the excess material is sent to the flare, where it is burned; however, the recovery system is designed to minimize flaring events.

In September 2000, the Refinery replaced a ground flare5 with a more efficient elevated smokeless flare, designed similar to the second and only other Refinery flare. At the Refinery, there is no routine flaring during normal operation. The Refinery flare system consists of the following key components:

• Flare gas/vapor compressor recovery system; • Liquid recovery system; • Video monitoring system; • Flare gas flow measurement system; • Automated flare gas sampling system, and • Modern smokeless flare installation.

5 The term – ground flare – implies a number of different types of technology. In its most basic form a ground flare is a flare located at ground level. In this specific instance the old ConocoPhillips ground flare was essentially an open pipe located in a pit with an igniter. Again, this old flare was removed in 2000.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-15 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

Typically, gases are recovered and used in the Refinery fuel gas system. Vapors are cooled resulting in some liquid condensate. The liquids are cooled and reprocessed. If a volume of gas vapor greater than 200,000 standard cubic feet per hour (capacity of the flare gas vapor recovery compressor) or because of the non-routine depressurizing of a unit gases are discharged into the system, the relief and blowdown recovery system would vent to the Refinery flare(s) for safe disposal of the gases. 3.3.2.10 Cogeneration Plant The Refinery’s steam/power plant is a cogeneration facility. The plant uses three simple-cycle gas turbines to generate electricity, and uses gas turbine waste heat to generate steam. The plant has an electricity production capacity of approximately 48 megawatts. It is fueled by refinery fuel gas (approximately 80 percent of the fuel) and, when refinery gas is not available, by purchased natural gas (approximately 20 percent of the fuel). The Refinery produces enough electricity for its own use; if excess electricity is available, it is exported to the regional grid. The Cogeneration Plant operates approximately 95 percent of the time.

3.3.2.11 Hydrogen Plant The Hydrogen Plant (Unit 110) is a steam methane reformer (SMR) that produces hydrogen and steam for use within the Refinery. Hydrogen is used in Hydrotreaters and in several other Refinery processes. The Hydrogen Plant includes an SMR furnace and associated stack, and other equipment including a compressor, cooler, and associated piping. Hydrogen is generated by reacting a petroleum liquid or gas, such as butane or natural gas, with steam in the presence of a catalyst. The SMR furnace is a process furnace that is used to maintain the reactants at a temperature that favors the production of hydrogen. The exhaust gases from the SMR furnace are passed through a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) gas treatment unit to reduce the emissions of oxides of nitrogen created in the combustion that takes place in the furnace. The hydrogen formed in this equipment is purified by a process called Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) and then is delivered to those units in the Refinery that use hydrogen gas.

3.3.2.12 Fuel Gas Center

Refinery gases containing H2S and other sulfur compounds flow through common headers to the Fuel Gas Treating Unit 233. These gases flow through one of the Refinery's amine absorbers where most of the H2S and sulfur compounds are absorbed by Diglycolamine (DGA). The treated gases are mixed with vaporized butane and natural gas and used as fuel gas in the heaters, furnaces, and boilers in the Refinery. The rich amine containing the H2S and sulfur compounds flows to the Sulfur Recovery Plant for further processing.

The Refinery installed a Fuel Gas Caustic Treatment system with the recently completed ULSD project. A slip stream of refinery fuel gas is sent to this caustic treatment system where additional sulfur compounds are removed using caustic to produce lower-sulfur fuel gas. This lower-sulfur fuel gas is used in the heaters that were recently added as part of the ULSD project.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-16 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

3.3.2.13 Wastewater Treatment Plant The Refinery has installed complex facilities to treat its wastewater to reduce concentrations of pollutants to acceptable levels before discharging it to San Pablo Bay. Treatment processing consists of oil-water separation, dissolved air flotation enhanced with flocculants, powdered activated carbon treatment, clarification, and sand filtration. After filtering, the effluent is pumped through a deepwater diffuser located underneath the Marine Terminal into San Pablo Bay.

The Refinery wastewater treatment plant is designed for a maximum capacity of about 10 million gallons per day. The flow to the treatment system is collected by four main sewer lines that deliver collected wastewater to a splitter box where the streams are mixed and then directed to sumps from which wastewater is pumped to equalization tanks. Equalization tanks are designed to provide an even, steady flow to the wastewater treatment system for optimal system effectiveness.

During wet weather periods, the stormwater runoff is added to the normal process wastewater flow. If the flow to the dry weather sump is higher than a set point, the excess flow is directed to a wet weather sump. The equalization tanks are designed so that if the first tank is full, flow is pumped into another equalization/storage tank and if the first and second tanks are full flow is pumped into a third equalization/storage tank. The storage capacity of refinery wastewater and storm runoff is sized to contain the volume for a rainfall rate for a 10-year, 36-hour storm plus 15 percent extra.

In addition to the treatment processes in the wastewater treatment plant, the Refinery installed a special pretreatment process for the wastewater discharged from units that have been shown to discharge significant amounts of selenium. Selenium is precipitated from the wastewater and is press-filtered to a solid cake that is transported to permitted landfills designated for safe disposal. The Refinery brought the selenium treatment unit on line in mid-1998. This special treatment system reduces the level of selenium in the wastewater by at least 95 percent to meet the Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations on the discharge of this element.

3.3.2.14 Tank Farm The tank farm consists of various sizes of tanks used for the storage of feedstocks, intermediate stocks, and finished products. The tank farm consists of both fixed roof and floating roof storage tanks. Some of the tanks are connected to a vapor collection system. At present, tanks are used to store crude oil, gas oils and distillates that are the basic feedstocks for Crude Unit (Unit 267) and the Crude/Delayed Coker Unit (Unit 200), intermediates, and finished products from Unit 76 blending operations.

3.3.2.15 Import-Export Facilities – Pipeline, Marine, Truck and Rail Pipelines are the predominant means to import crude oil and other feedstock. Product pipelines also distribute gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel to terminals; from these terminals, products are

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-17 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

delivered by truck to gas stations and other ConocoPhillips customers. Railcars are used to export butane.

In addition, ships deliver crude oil, blending stocks, and feedstock to the Refinery’s Marine Terminal Complex. The Marine Terminal is equipped with pumps, piping, heavy cargo hoses to transport liquids, and a thermal oxidizer for vapor emission control. A ship’s cargo is unloaded via the pipelines, and cargo holds are pumped to storage tanks on shore. Product ships and barges leave the Marine Terminal loaded with intermediate and refined products for other coastal cities and distribution terminals.

Some raw materials and products used at the refinery are imported by truck. These include liquid oxygen, sodium hydroxide, aqueous ammonia, amine, sulfuric acid, Stretford solution, and water treating chemicals and additives. Molten sulfur, a byproduct from the Sulfur Recovery Plant, is loaded into trucks at a dedicated sulfur truck-loading facility. Petroleum coke is transported by conveyor from the Delayed Coker Unit to a dedicated Coke truck-loading facility. Trucks also haul waste from the Refinery, including sulfur/vanadium Stretford hazardous waste and spent catalyst. 3.4 Components of the Proposed Project 3.4.1 Introduction The Proposed Project components considered in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) include a new Heavy Gas Oil Hydrocracker (Unit 246), new Hydrogen Plant; Reformer revisions; a new unit at the Sulfur Recovery Plant (Unit 235); and Other Projects. Table 3-2 provides an expanded overview of all Proposed Project components. A more detailed description of each of the Proposed Project components is provided in the following sections of this chapter and the impacts of each Proposed Project component are described in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.

3.4.2 New and Modified Facilities and Equipment The primary objective of the Proposed Project is to increase production of gasoline and diesel by constructing modifications and additional equipment that would convert more of the heavy gas oil (HGO) currently produced in the Refinery into gasoline and diesel. To produce the additional motor fuels, the existing Unicracker Complex is planned to be modified to process HGO into gasoline and diesel fuels. The subsequent refinery processes which follow the hydrocracking process would be modified to accommodate the increased amounts of clean motor fuels.

New equipment includes a high pressure reactor train (HPRT) and new furnace at new Unit 246, pumps, heat exchangers, reactors, compressors, piping, and vessel components at various downstream units. Other modifications include increasing the Bay Area Air Quality

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-18 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

TABLE 3-2 PROJECT MATRIX

EIR Section 3.4.2.1 3.4.2.2 3.4.2.3 3.4.2.4 3.4.2.5 3.4.2.6 3.4.2.7 3.4.2.8 3.4.2.9 3.4.2.10 3.4.2.11 3.4.2.12

Gasoline and Diesel Production Improvements Sulfur Recovery Modifications Other Components

Unicracker (Unit 240) and Existing Unit new HGO Product Modifications New Sulfur Modify New Butane Project Hydrocracker Reformer UNISAR Blending Deisobutanizer (Units 234, 236, Recovery Unit Piping and Rail Loading New Hydrogen Plant Wastewater Component (Unit 246) (Unit 244) (Unit 248) (Unit 76) (Unit 215 DIB) 238) (235) Utilities Facility (Unit 120) Water Use Treatment Energy Utilities

Component Increase production Increase production Increase production Increase production Increase production rate Modify or replace the Add a new sulfur Add additional Construct a new Add facilities to produce high Additional water Additional water Additional energy Description rate by adding new rate by modifying rate by modifying rate by modifying by modifying existing amine regenerator to recovery unit with piping to butane rail loading purity hydrogen required for usage from the treated from the usage from the equipment existing equipment existing equipment existing equipment equipment handle increased new Claus Plant and connect various facility the increased gasoline and Proposed Proposed Project Proposed Project capacity. New sulfur Tail Gas Treating process units diesel production Project components degassing system Unit and storage. Replace sulfur loading rack with new rack Current Processing 42,000 barrels per 16,087 barrels per 8,812 barrels per 90,411 barrels per 7,600 barrels per day 271 long tons per day N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.32 million 2.5 million gallons per 48 megawatts Rate day day day day gallons per day day Proposed 65,000 barrels per 18,500 barrels per 16,740 barrels per 113,150 barrels per 10,200 barrels per day 271 long tons per day 200 long tons per N/A N/A 120 million standard cubic feet 5.42 million 2.51 million gallons 67.8 megawatts Processing Rate day day day day day per day gallons per day per day Project Percent 55% 62% 90% 25% 34% No Change N/A N/A N/A N/A 25% 0.40% 41% Increase in Production Rate Equipment to be 1. HGO heater 1. Pumps 1. Pumps 1. Pumps 1. Pumps 1. Pumps 1. New Claus Plant New piping and 1. Pumps 1. Steam Methane Reformer New tie-in piping New tie-in piping. New steam installed in 2. Unicracker 2. Heat exchangers 2. Heat exchangers 2. Heat exchangers 2. Heat exchangers 2. Heat exchangers 2. New Tail Gas tie-in. 2. Piping fittings 2. SMR furnace to the Hydrogen turbine/generator component Hydrotreater Treatment Unit. Plant would be included in 3. Piping fittings 3. Piping fittings 3. Piping fittings 3. Piping fittings 3. Piping fittings 3. Access 3. PSA hydrogen purifier the new Hydrogen 3. Unicracker 4. Modify or replace 4. New sour water 3. Piping fittings Structures 4. Cooling Water Tower Plant complex Reactor existing reactors stripper 4. New sulfur 4. Loading Arms 5. New Hydrogen/SynGas 4. Heat exchangers 5. DGA regenerator degassing tank 5. Existing Rail Dedicated flare 5. Stripper modified or replaced 5. New sulfur loading Spur May be 6. Ammonia storage tank rack Modified 6. Vacuum Flasher 7. Steam Turbine/Generator 7. Separators 8. Piping fittings 9. Pumps Equipment Location See Figure 3-3. See Figure 3-3. See Figure 3-3. See Figure 3-3. See Figure 3-3. Existing See Figure 3-3 See Figure 3-3 Various See Figure 3-3. See Figure 3-3 See Figure 3-3. See Figure 3-3. See Figure 3-3. This Existing unit located Existing unit Existing unit Existing unit unit located just to the locations within Near the western This would be at Existing plant is would be at the just to the northwest located just to the located just to the located to the northeast of new Unit the Refinery shore line of the the location of located east of location of Unit 120 of new Unit 246 northeast of PG&E east of PG&E southwest of the 246 complex Refinery just west Unit 120 San Pablo Avenue on property and property and new Unit 246 of the long wharf at southwestern corner northwest of new northwest of new the Refinery within of Refinery Unit 246 Unit 246 an existing rail loading facility Approximate 1. Hydrotreater R- Equipment would Equipment would Equipment would Equipment would be 1. Sour water stripper Preliminary design Various small Preliminary design 1. Steam Methane Reformer Various pipes Various pipes etc. Various Equipment 801A 101 feet tall, be located within be located within be located within located within existing 125 feet tall, 8 feet in not at sufficient level pipes etc. not at sufficient 100 feet by 80 feet by 70 feet etc. Dimensions 14 feet in diameter existing unit existing unit existing unit unit structures diameter of detail to provide level of detail to tall 2. Hydrotreater R- structures structures structures dimensions of provide dimensions 2. SMR furnace stack 120 feet 801B 82 feet tall, disturbed area of disturbed area tall, 5.25 feet in diameter 14 feet in diameter Figure 3-3 shows Exact dimensions 3. Cooling tower 38 feet by 3. Unicracker maximum of new structure feet by 28 feet with two cells, 102 feet tall, 13 feet approximate heights are not each 12 feet in diameter in diameter boundaries of site. finalized but would Approximate be no greater than 4. Ammonia storage tank 10 4. Stripper tower maximum height of existing structures feet tall, 20 feet in diameter 91 feet tall, 7 feet in tallest structure, Tail in area diameter Gas Incinerator stack 5. Vacuum tower - 200 to 300 feet tall 114 feet tall, 13 feet in diameter 6. HGO heater stack 135 feet tall, 6 feet in diameter Operation Notes No modifications Would use amine Current treatment Only an additional 9.8 would be made to the technology to plant capacity is 10 megawatts would be existing Claus Sulfur remove hydrogen million gallons per day required from PG&E plant sulfide vapor from tail gas

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-19 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

This page left intentionally blank

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-20 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

Management District-permitted capacity of the Unicracker (Unit 240) hydrocracking process, the Deisobutanizer (Unit 215 DIB), the Catalytic Reformer (Unit 244), and the UNISAR (Unit 248). ConocoPhillips has submitted an application to BAAQMD for these permit increases and modifications.

A new Hydrogen Plant would be needed to supply the additional hydrogen required for the cracking and purification processes. The proposed Hydrogen Plant would incorporate proven technology upgrades to improve efficiency and reliability. Additionally, the new Hydrogen Plant would include equipment to produce high-pressure steam from recovery of waste heat. This recovered energy would enable the Refinery to shut down the Unit 240 B-1 boiler, resulting in a reduction of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, as well as other pollutants presently emitted in the boiler combustion products.

The new Sulfur Recovery Unit 235 would add sulfur removal capacity, which would be needed because more sulfur would be removed in the Proposed Project due to the increased hydrotreating and hydrocracking processing. The proposed Sulfur Recovery Unit would incorporate proven technology upgrades to improve efficiency and reliability.

Figure 3-3 shows a plot plan with the locations of proposed site modifications. Figure 3-5 is a block flow diagram for the current processes and units and also highlights the proposed new and modified processes that would occur under the Proposed Project. Figure 3-6 provides an overview of the Proposed Project in a block flow diagram.

ConocoPhillips San Francisco Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project EIR Figure 3-6 Project Block Flow Diagram

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-21 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

3.4.2.1 Unicracker Unit HGO Utilization Modifications The existing Unicracker (Unit 240) hydrocracking process would be modified to increase its throughput capacity from 42,000 barrels per day (bbl/day) to 65,000 bbl/day by adding a high pressure reaction train (HPRT) capable of converting a variety of HGO feeds into high-quality diesel and gasoline. Figure 3-7 shows an overview of the HGO hydrocracking and fractionation process, and proposed modifications.

ConocoPhillips San Francisco Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project EIR Figure 3-7 HGO Utilization and Fractionation Process

Current Operation The existing Unit 240 is designed to hydrocrack only Light Gas Oil (LGO), which is then fractionated in downstream equipment into naphtha, gasoline blendstocks, and jet fuel and diesel blendstocks.

Proposed Changes The Hydrocracker expansion would enable ConocoPhillips to hydrocrack HGO, which would then be fractionated in downstream equipment into naphtha, gasoline blendstock, jet fuel, diesel blendstocks, and low-sulfur HGO. The low-sulfur HGO would be exported to other refineries. The HPRT (new Unit 246) would consist of the following new equipment:

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-22 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

• HGO Feed Heater: A new 85 million British thermal units per hour (million Btu/hr) heater would be fired with low-sulfur Refinery gas and equipped with low NOx burners and a Selective Catalytic Reduction system to minimize emissions. • HGO Treating and Cracking Reactors: These reactors would convert the HGO to gasoline and diesel using a catalyst under high-pressure conditions with added hydrogen. • HGO Product Stripper and Vacuum Flasher (Shown on Figure 3-9): These vessels would separate naphtha, gasoline blendstock, jet fuel, diesel blendstocks, and low-sulfur HGO from the recycled, unconverted oil stream. In addition to this primary equipment, process piping, pumps, heat exchangers, separator vessels, and tie-ins to existing process equipment would be installed. To process light products from the HPRT, ConocoPhillips would make some equipment modifications to the existing Hydrocracker fractionation section to accommodate the additional load.

The proposed new equipment would be constructed on a roughly 250- by 200-foot site adjacent to the existing Unicracker process unit, which is a previously developed area within Refinery boundaries.

3.4.2.2 Reformer (Unit 244) The capacity of the Reformer (Unit 244) would increase from 16,087 to 18,500 barrels per day (bbl/day) by reducing hydraulic constraints in the unit (see Figure 3-7).

Current Operations The Reformer (Unit 244) currently reformulates naphtha, produced by the LGO Hydrocracker, into gasoline.

Proposed Changes Under the Proposed Project, the Reformer (Unit 244) would receive naphtha from the HGO Hydrocracker, as well as the LGO Hydrocracker. Therefore, the unit would require approximately 2,400 bbl/day of additional capacity to process the increased supply of naphtha into gasoline. Changes would be made to pumps, valves, and heat exchangers associated with this unit, and one or more of the existing reactors may be modified or replaced to handle increased feed. For the purposes of the approval sought for the Proposed Project, this analysis assumes that the existing reactors would be modified and / or replaced. All of the heaters associated with Unit 244 would have increased utilization, but the heater-firing rate would not increase above the current BAAQMD permitted limit.

3.4.2.3 UNISAR The capacity of the UNISAR (Unit 248) would increase from the 3-year annual average historical throughput of 8,812 to 16,740 bbl/day (see Figure 3-7).

Current Operation The UNISAR currently receives the heavier fraction of the cracked LGO and hydrotreats it. The treatment refines the burning characteristics of jet fuel distillate stock produced by the Unicracker

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-23 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

to reduce exhaust smoke generated when the jet fuel is used in aircraft. The clean turbine fuel produced by the UNISAR is used as commercial jet fuel or as a ULSD diesel blendstock.

Proposed Changes After the Proposed Project modification, Unit 248 would process more jet fuel from the HGO Hydrocracker, as well as the LGO Hydrocracker. Therefore, the unit would increase feed by approximately 8,000 bbl/day, to reach full capacity. Changes would be made to pumps, valves, and heat exchangers associated with this unit to handle increased feed. Unit 248 has one fired source, the B-606 heater, which may increase in utilization but not above the current BAAQMD permitted limit.

3.4.2.4 Product Blending Unit 76 The Proposed Project would result in the production of more gasoline and diesel products for blending. The annual permitted capacity of Unit 76 would be increased to match the daily permitted limit of 113,150 bbl/day of gasoline.

Current Operation Product Blending (Unit 76) mixes blending stocks and additives to meet consumer product specifications. The existing Title V throughput limit is 113,150 bbl/day for gasoline. The annual permitted throughput limit is 33,000,000 bbl/year or an equivalent of 90,411 bbl/day.

Proposed Changes The Proposed Project would require changes to pumps and valves associated with this unit. ConocoPhillips would add or change pumps, and add new valves, flanges, connectors, and piping to the unit for product blending flexibility and full utilization of its capacity. The annual throughput limit would be increased to 41300,000 bbl/year or an equivalent of 113,150 bbl/day.

3.4.2.5 Deisobutanizing Unit The capacity of the Deisobutanizer (Unit 215 DIB) would increase from 7,600 to 10,200 bbl/day.

Current Operation The Deisobutanizer separates out isobutane from the mixed butane stream. The butane stream from Unit 215 must be treated with caustic to reduce the sulfur content of butane to less than 10 parts per million (ppm) sulfur.

Proposed Changes Due to the increased product, the Unit 215 DIB Deisobutanizer Unit’s capacity would be increased by an additional 2,600 bbl/day. This capacity increase would be made by reducing hydraulic constraints in the unit. Changes would be made to pumps, valves, and heat exchangers associated with this unit to handle increased feed.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-24 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

3.4.2.6 Amine Regenerators, Related Modifications and Sulfur Recovery Unit The Refinery’s existing Sulfur Recovery Plant has three parallel Sulfur Recovery Units (Units 234, 236, and 238), that are each equipped with a Claus Sulfur Recovery Unit and an associated Beavon Stretford Tail Gas Treating Unit. As currently configured, the sulfur production capacities of these units are 70, 86, and 115 long tons per day, respectively.

The Proposed Project Unicracker modifications would allow processing of heavy-sulfur HGO into low-sulfur gasoline and diesel products that would generate additional load to the Sulfur Recovery Plant. To achieve the proposed increased capacity, a new Sulfur Recovery Unit would be constructed with additional capacity of 200 long tons/day. Total Sulfur Recovery Plant capacity would increase by approximately 74 percent (to 471 long tons/day from 271 long tons/day). No changes to the existing capacity of Sulfur Recovery Units 234, 236 or 238 are proposed.

Thus, sulfur production would increase the total capacity by an additional 200 long tons/day. A general process flow diagram of the new Sulfur Recovery Unit is shown in Figure 3-8. Table 3-3 summarizes the proposed total capacity of the Sulfur Recovery Plant.

ConocoPhillips San Francisco Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project EIR Figure 3-8 Proposed New SRU and TGTUs ConocoPhillips Refinery Rodeo, CA

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-25 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

TABLE 3-3 PROPOSED SULFUR RECOVERY PLANT CAPACITY CHANGES

Sulfur Recovery Plant Capacities Current Capacity Post-Project Capacity (long tons/day)

Unit 234 Sulfur Recovery Unit 70 70 Unit 236 Sulfur Recovery Unit 86 86 Unit 238 Sulfur Recovery Unit 115 115 Unit 235 Sulfur Recovery Unit --- 200 Total Sulfur Recovery Plant Capacity 271 471

The Sulfur Recovery Plant has three main components: the feed system, the Claus Plant and the TGTUs. The tie-in from the new Sulfur Recovery Unit (Unit 235) to the existing Sulfur Recovery Units would include a common feed gas system and a common above ground degassed storage tank and a new sulfur truck loading rack that would replace the existing rack.

Amine Regenerators and Sour Water Strippers Current Operation Sulfur Recovery Plant feed comes from two sources: the Refinery Amine System, which uses Diglycolamine (DGA), and the sour waters strippers. The Refinery Amine System consists of three amine absorbers (one each at the ULSD Hydrotreater, Hydrogen Plant, and fuel gas treatment unit), and three amine regenerators at the Sulfur Recovery Unit (SRU) (two in continual service and one in service occasionally). Lean DGA is used in the absorbers to remove sulfur compounds from fuels and process streams. The rich (sulfur-containing) DGA is then sent to the amine regenerators where the hydrogen sulfide acid gas is separated from the rich DGA. The resulting regenerated lean DGA is sent back to the amine absorbers. Acid gas from the amine regenerators is sent to the SRU to recover elemental sulfur.

The Refinery has three sour water strippers, which remove H2S and ammonia. Acid gas from the sour water strippers is sent to the SRUs to recover sulfur and burn ammonia and the treated water is recycled back for use at the Refinery.

Proposed Changes In the Amine System, one DGA regenerator (D-2) would be modified or replaced and put in continuous service to handle increased capacity. One or more sour water strippers (D-901, D-911, and D-921) would be modified by replacing trays, piping, pumps, and exchangers or one new sour water stripper with new piping, pumps, and exchangers would be installed to handle increased sour water quantities. These modifications and/or new installations would improve efficiency and reliability.

Existing Claus (Sulfur) Plants Current Operation

The Claus Plant reaction converts H2S to elemental sulfur. The acid gases pass through a reaction furnace thermal conversion section where H2S is burned with a controlled amount of air and

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-26 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

oxygen to yield the optimum ratio of H2S to SO2 for conversion to elemental sulfur (about one- 6 third SO2 and two-thirds H2S). Units 236 and 238 were modified recently in ConocoPhillips’ Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) project to add low-level oxygen enrichment technology. The converted acid gases then pass through three catalytic conversion sections where the SO2 and H2S react in the presence of an alumina catalyst to form sulfur and water vapor. At various stages, the sulfur vapor is condensed and collected in sulfur pits. About 94 to 95 percent of the H2S is converted to liquid sulfur. The tail gases from the final condenser are sent to the Beavon Stretford TGTU.

In the Claus Plant, all of the ammonia is converted to nitrogen and water in the reaction furnace.

Proposed Changes No modifications are proposed to the existing Claus Plants; the new SRU (Unit 235) would tie into the existing feed gas system.

Existing Tail Gas Treatment Units Current Operation Gases enter a hydrogenation reactor where any remaining sulfur vapor, sulfur compounds, and

SO2 are converted to H2S via hydrogenation and hydrolysis reactions in the presence of cobalt molybdenum catalyst. The tail gases containing H2S are then cooled and contacted by Stretford solution. The Stretford catalyst reacts with the H2S to form elemental sulfur particles. The Stretford solution is regenerated by air sparging, which also floats the elemental sulfur in the slurry. The sulfur froth is concentrated by a filter press to form sulfur cake. The Stretford solution itself contains vanadium which ends up in sulfur cake at a concentration that makes the cake a hazardous waste. The sulfur cake is trucked off-site and the Stretford filtrate solution is returned to circulation. By themselves, the Beavon Stretford TGTUs achieve 99 percent recovery of H2S. When combined with the Claus SRUs (see above), the Beavon Stretford TGTU + Claus SRU train achieves greater than 99 percent sulfur recovery in each TGTU.

Proposed Changes All of the existing SRU sulfur pits and the new SRU Claus sulfur pit or tank would feed to a new common sulfur degassing unit, new degassed sulfur storage tank and sulfur truck-loading rack.

H2S-rich vapors that would be recovered during degassing would be recycled back to the new Claus reaction furnace.

New Sulfur Recovery Unit (Unit 235) Proposed Changes A new SRU with a capacity of 200 long tons/day would be constructed. The new SRU (Unit 235) would tie-into the existing feed gas system. The new SRU would have a Claus Plant to convert

H2S to elemental sulfur consisting of a reaction furnace and three catalytic converters. The reaction furnace oxidizes a portion of the sulfur compounds to SO2 which reacts with H2S to form sulfur and water vapor. The unconverted H2S and SO2 would then pass through three catalytic

6 The ConocoPhillips ULSD project was completed in March 2005 at the Refinery.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-27 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

conversion sections where the SO2 and H2S would react in the presence of an alumina catalyst to form sulfur and water vapor. Each stage would have either a steam or fired reheater. At various stages, the sulfur vapor would condense and collect in a sulfur pit or tank. About 94 to 97 percent of the H2S would be converted to liquid sulfur. In the Claus Plant, all of the ammonia would be converted to nitrogen and water in the reaction furnace.

The new SRU would normally operate with air only (no oxygen enrichment); however, the burner, burner controls, thermal reactor (reaction furnace) and waste heat boiler designs shall have an installed capacity to operate with oxygen enrichment.

The Stretford process, which is used in the existing SRUs, is maintenance-intensive and prone to mechanical reliability problems. An amine technology (methyldiethanolamine [MDEA] or other amine) would be used to remove H2S vapor from the TGTU emissions. The new TGTU Amine System would include one new absorber and one new regenerator at the new SRU. The amine technology would recycle the recovered H2S back to the start of the Claus Plant.

After amine treatment, the resulting TGTU emissions would contain very low concentrations of reduced sulfur compounds. To ensure that H2S or other air toxics are not released at concentrations greater than allowable levels, the tail gas would be incinerated in a thermal incinerator. This combustion process would oxidize the remaining reduced sulfur compounds into

SO2. Supplementary fuel for the incinerator would be natural gas.

The new sulfur recovery plant acid gas lines would tie into the flare gas system. The new sulfur pit/tank vapors would be rerouted back to the reaction furnace. Vapor vents from the new common Sulfur Degassing System and the new Sulfur Storage Tank and the vent from the new sulfur truck loading rack would be routed to the reaction furnace in the new SRU as a primary destination and to the existing Claus reaction furnace at Unit 238 SRU as an alternative destination.

3.4.2.7 Modify Piping and Utilities Proposed Changes Additional piping would be installed to connect various process units. This additional piping would consist of new lines or tie-ins to existing lines outside the area of the process units. New rundown lines would be installed to send products to storage, and interconnecting lines would be installed between process units. Relief lines or blowdown tie-ins outside the process units would also be installed to bring individual plant relief loads to the existing relief system.

3.4.2.8 New Butane Rail Loading Facility Proposed Changes A new butane rail-loading facility would be constructed or an existing rail-loading structure would be modified for butane loading in railcars. The facility would include new piping, valves, connections, access structures, and loading arms. The existing rail spur may also be modified.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-28 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

3.4.2.9 New Hydrogen Plant (Unit 120) Proposed Changes A new Steam Methane Reformer (SMR) Hydrogen Plant is proposed to supply hydrogen to the expanded hydrocracker. The Hydrogen Plant’s proposed capacity is 120 million standard cubic feet per day of hydrogen production. It would be located within the perimeter of the Refinery near existing Refinery process blocks. The Hydrogen Plant is planned to be owned and operated by a third party.

The new Hydrogen Plant would use steam methane reforming, the most widely used technology for producing hydrogen from hydrocarbon (C1-C5) feedstocks. A proposed Hydrogen Plant Process Flow Diagram is presented on Figure 3-9. The new Hydrogen Plant would be capable of handling several different feeds, including gaseous feeds of natural gas and refinery fuel gas, and liquid feeds of butane and pentanes. As shown in Figure 3-9, the basic steps of the hydrogen manufacturing process include: feed pretreatment; reforming; shift conversion; and hydrogen purification.

ConocoPhillips San Francisco Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project EIR Figure 3-9 Proposed Hydrogen Plant Process Flow Diagram

The proposed Hydrogen Plant would be supplied with feed streams from the Refinery. Heat recovery equipment would be installed to recover waste heat and produce steam and/or electricity from recovery of waste heat for use by the Refinery. Because steam would be produced from the Hydrogen Plant, use of the Unit 240 B-1 boiler would no longer be necessary and it would thus be shut down.

Hydrogen Plant Process Feed Pretreatment Any condensate contained in the gaseous feeds is removed in a coalescing filter. The gaseous feed normally contains hydrogen, when the normal feed is not available; natural gas will be used mixed with a small amount of hydrogen. The feed Hydrotreater converts sulfur compounds to hydrogen sulfide and saturates any unsaturated hydrocarbons present in the feed. The hydrotreated feed is then fed to the desulfurizers, where a zinc oxide (ZnO) catalyst adsorbs the

H2S.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-29 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

Reforming After pretreatment, the feed is mixed with superheated steam. The feed mixture then passes through catalyst-filled tubes in the Reformer. In the presence of nickel catalyst, feed reacts with steam to produce hydrogen and carbon oxides by the following reforming reaction and the water- gas shift:

CH4 + H2O + heat = CO + 3H2 (1)

CO + H2O = CO2 + H2 (2)

This reaction takes place under temperatures carefully controlled by the SMR Furnace. The Reformer product is known as SynGas, which consists primarily of hydrogen and carbon monoxide.

Shift Conversion The process gas stream leaves the Reformer and is fed to the Shift Converter. The Shift Converter contains a bed of copper-promoted iron-chromium catalyst. Most of the incoming carbon monoxide is chemically shifted or converted to carbon dioxide and hydrogen by the following shift reaction:

CO + H2O = CO2 + H2 + heat (3)

The shift reaction gives off heat. The Shift Converter effluent gas is cooled in a heat exchanger with boiler feed water. The cooled gas stream then flows into the Hot Condensate Separator where steam condensate is separated from gases. The resulting vapor stream is cooled and is then sent to the Cold Condensate Separator where condensate is separated and the gas is sent to the Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) hydrogen purification unit.

The process condensate is treated and recycled for use as boiler feed water. During the reforming process, the condensate absorbs some byproducts from the reforming and shift reaction, chiefly ammonia and methanol. Most of the byproducts are stripped in the high-pressure condensate stripper and recycled within the SMR. A small amount of ammonia and methanol remains in the stripped condensate which is recycled to the boiler. A small amount of boiler steam is sent to the deaerator which results in minute quantities of methanol and ammonia being vented to atmosphere.

Hydrogen Purification The PSA purification technology operates on a continuously repeated cycle with multiple steps. The two main steps are adsorption and desorption taking place in two fixed beds of adsorbents. In the adsorption step, feed gas flows through solid adsorbents, which are granules that selectively hold (adsorb) impurities on their surfaces. As impurities are removed from the gas, the hydrogen purity increases. The feed flow over the adsorbent continues until the capacity of the adsorbent to hold impurities is approached. Then the flow is switched to direct the feed gas to other regenerated adsorbent beds. The beds, loaded with impurities, are then regenerated – a

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-30 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

process of depressurization and purging of the adsorbents that releases the impurities held on the surface of the adsorbents.

The adsorber vessels are then repressured and returned to service. The off gas generated from the PSA regeneration is sent to the SMR Furnace where it provides most of the fuel requirement.

Steam Methane Reformer Furnace A SMR Furnace would be installed with a maximum firing capacity of approximately 975 million

Btu/hr, higher heating value. This furnace would be equipped with low-NOx burners and a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system to reduce NOx emissions and meet Best Available

Control Technology (BACT) standards. Aqueous ammonia, used as a reducing agent for the NOx reaction in the SCR, would be delivered by truck and stored onsite in a tank.

Hydrogen/SynGas Flare The new Hydrogen Plant would have a safety flare to combust hydrogen and SynGases during startup, shutdown, Refinery shutdown periods, maintenance events, and process upsets. The gases combusted in the new Hydrogen Plant flare would be products of the SMR reaction, either SynGas produced by the reformer or hydrogen product. Any relief valve venting of SMR feed streams, such as natural gas, refinery gas, butane or pentane, would be routed to the existing Refinery flare system. The new Hydrogen Plant flare would also be used to control emissions from the aqueous ammonia tank pressure relief valve. The new Hydrogen Plant would have no routine flaring emissions.

During startup and shutdown, the SynGas would be flared during the transient low operational rates. At low rates, the quality of the SynGas would be so low that it cannot be sufficiently purified in the PSA, so it would be flared. The expected frequency of a complete shutdown and restart is difficult to predict, but on average it would probably happen once per year. During maintenance of PSA vessels, the plant could continue to run, but it would be necessary to de- pressure the vessels being worked on. Valves on the PSA operate almost continuously as the beds switch service every few minutes. As these valves begin to fail, the purity of the hydrogen could change, alerting the operators. The valves must be replaced quickly in order to maintain proper plant operations. Therefore, beds could be taken offline in pairs for repair, without shutting down the entire plant. Operating experience indicates that this condition would occur at least three times each year. Operationally, it is also possible that the entire PSA would be taken off line. For this scenario, SynGas would be flared as the Hydrogen Plant cuts its production rate. It is assumed that this scenario would occur about once per year, on average. When the Refinery shuts down or cuts back production on a unit that takes hydrogen, initially the product hydrogen would be flared as the Hydrogen Plant cuts its rates.

Cooling Water Tower The new Hydrogen Plant would have a cooling water tower with a capacity of 5.3 million gallons per day (3,700 gallons per minute) circulation rate. The cooling water tower would be a double- cell conventional induced draft unit. It would be equipped with high-efficiency drift eliminators

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-31 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

to control mist emissions. The proposed cooling tower would cool the process gas after it passes through the shift converter. The only organic compounds expected in the process gas after the shift converter are methane and ethane with low solubility in water, so if a leak occurred between the gas and the cooling water, the cooling water would contain only trace amounts of residual organic material.

Aqueous Ammonia Tank The new SMR furnace would use an SCR process that utilizes 19 percent aqueous ammonia. Aqueous ammonia would be stored in a new pressure vessel with a nitrogen blanket. Aqueous ammonia would be delivered to the tank by truck.

Steam Production The proposed Hydrogen Plant would incorporate heat recovery equipment that would produce high-pressure steam in a waste heat boiler. The new Hydrogen Plant would receive boiler feed water from ConocoPhillips, and would have a small chemical injection skid to control the boiler- water chemistry.

3.4.2.10 Water Use Current Operation ConocoPhillips currently uses approximately 4.32 million gallons per day (3,000 gallons per minute) of East Bay Municipal Water District (EBMUD) water.

Proposed Changes Under the Proposed Project, the consumption of water would increase by up to 767 gallons per minute (1,225 acre-feet per year). Additional water is planned to be provided by EBMUD and an adequate water supply is available. The Refinery uses water primarily for making steam for refining processes and for cooling water and the production of hydrogen. Additional water use would not require changes to the existing refinery piping. However, new tie-in piping would be installed at the proposed Hydrogen Plant.

3.4.2.11 Wastewater Treatment Current Operation Current wastewater treatment plant flows are approximately 3.3 million gallons per day. The wastewater treatment plant has a capacity of approximately 10 million gallons per day. The wastewater treatment plant employs primary and secondary treatment to process wastewater prior to discharge. Primary treatment consists of an API (gravity Separator and Dissolved Air Floatation (DAF) unit. The DAF removes dissolved oil from the wastewater by mixing in polymers to create floc particles and then saturates the wastewater with air to float the particles to the surface for removal by skimming. The DAF has four cells, each with a vent to atmosphere. An open channel transfers the DAF effluent to the secondary treatment unit feed sump.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-32 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

Proposed Changes Overall flow to the Refinery’s wastewater treatment plant, located in the southwestern portion of the Refinery, would increase with implementation of the Proposed Project. Overall flow to the Refinery’s wastewater treatment plant would increase from cooling tower blowdown and boiler blowdown by approximately 97,920 gallons per day and thus no treatment plant expansion or modification would be required. Sour water stripper input would increase. A portion of the stripped sour water would be recycled within Unit 240; thus, there would be no net increase of flow to the Selenium Reduction Plant. The concentration of selenium exiting the Selenium Reduction Plant would not change as a result of the implementation of the Proposed Project. Additionally, the four DAF vents will be routed to a Thermal Oxidizer and the gas stream would be scrubbed of H2S.

3.4.2.12 Energy Utilities Current Operation The Refinery currently produces approximately 48 megawatts (MW) of electrical power which, as of 2005, was enough electricity for its own use with no power exported.

Proposed Changes As a result of implementing the Proposed Project, Refinery electrical usage would increase. The additional power would be provided by the existing Cogeneration facility and the proposed Hydrogen Plant steam turbine; and from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Natural gas consumption would increase during those periods when refinery fuel gas supplies are not adequate. The additional natural gas would be provided by PG&E.

Additional cooling demands from Proposed Project new flow rates would be met with new air cooling heat exchangers and cooling water exchangers located in process units to reduce capacity demands on the existing cooling water system.

The Proposed Project would require an increase of approximately 19.8 MW at the Refinery, with 6.2 MW required for the proposed Hydrogen Plant and 13.6 MW for the Refinery. With the Proposed Project the new Hydrogen Plant would have a steam turbine generator that would produce approximately 10 MW for refinery use. Thus, with operation of the Proposed Project, 9.8 MW would be required from the local PG&E power grid. A new 115kv electrical substation located on site would be required to supply electrical power from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s substation adjacent to the Refinery to the Proposed Project. The location of these substations are shown on Figure 3-3.

3.4.3 Import and Export Implementation of the Proposed Project would affect the transportation of raw materials and products into and out of the Refinery. The planned changes in production quantities are shown in Table 3-4.

The planned changes in imports and exports are presented in Table 3-5.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-33 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

TABLE 3-4 CONOCOPHILLIPS CLEAN FUELS EXPANSION PROJECT PRODUCT FLOW CHANGES

Transport Pre-project CFEP Post-project Estimated Product Mode Averagea Average Project Change

Gasoline Pipeline 39,053 bbl/day 49,353 bbl/day +10,300 bbl/day Marine 16,496 bbl/day 25,000 bbl/day +8,504 bbl/day Diesel and Jet Fuel Pipeline 31,565 bbl/day 34,565 bbl/day +3,000 bbl/day Marine 13,626 bbl/day 17,544 bbl/day +3,918 bbl/day Gas Oils and Fuel Oils Marine 16,860 bbl/day 1,400 bbl/day -15,460 bbl/day Sulfur Truck 254 long tons/day 471 long tons/day +217 long tons/day Butane Rail 4,200 bbl/day 6,200 bbl/day +2,000 bbl/day

a – Basis for Pre-project Average is the Post-ULSD historical data from April through December 2005

TABLE 3-5 CONOCOPHILLIPS CLEAN FUELS EXPANSION PROJECT INPUT/OUTPUT BASIS

Transportation Transport Current Estimated Estimated Material Hazard Category Mode Averagea Project Change

Imports Sodium Hydroxide Corrosive Liquid Truck 4 trips/month + 1 trip/month Aqueous Ammonia Corrosive Liquid Truck 6 trips/month +2 trips/month Amine Corrosive Liquid Truck 7 trips/year +2 trips/year Additives Flammable Liquid Truck 5 trips/month +2 trips/month Product Exports Gas Oil and Fuels Combustible Liquid Marine vessels 5 trips/year -4 vessels/year Marine barges 145 trips/year -133 trips/year Gasoline Flammable Liquid Pipeline 39,053 bbl/day +10,300 bbl/day Marine vessels 7 trips/year +15 trips/year Marine barges 56 trips/year -18 trips/year Diesel and Jet Fuel Flammable Liquid Pipeline 31,565 bbl/day +3,000 bbl/day Marine vessels 13 trips/year +7 trips/year Marine barges 32 trips/year +12 trips/year Butane Flammable Gas Rail 5 rail cars/day + 3 rail cars/day Product Sulfur Molten Truck 11 trips/day +9 trips per day Waste Spent Catalyst Recycled or Truck 34 trips/year + 12 trips/yearb Regulated Waste

a Basis for Pre-project Average is the Post-ULSD historical data from April through December 2005 b Annualized based on a 48 month turnaround cycles for CFEP units. All trips are two-way trips.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-34 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

3.4.4 Operations Workforce Under the Proposed Project, ConocoPhillips would employ approximately 12 new permanent employees at its Refinery. The Refinery currently has approximately 575 permanent and contract employees. In addition, the new Hydrogen Plant would employ approximately 15 new permanent employees.

3.4.5 Operations Phase – Traffic and Transportation The Proposed Project would involve a total of less than 22 additional daily employee commute vehicle two-way trips during project operations. In addition, there would be a small net increase (approximately five per month) of additional truck trips to deliver materials and supplies. Trucks transporting the additional volumes of molten sulfur offsite are estimated at nine additional two- way trips per day7.

The Proposed Project would eliminate approximately 133 barge trips (from the current 145) and 4 marine vessel trips (from the current 5) per year that currently transport HGO product from the Refinery. The Proposed Project would decrease the number of gasoline barge trips from 56 to 38 trips per year and increase the number of marine vessel trips from seven to 22 per year. Additional diesel and jet fuel shipments would include 12 barge trips per year and seven marine vessel trips per year. Increased butane production from the expanded hydrocracker would result in an increase of butane shipments of up to 2,000 bbl/day or three rail cars per day.

3.4.6 Operations Phase – Transportation of Hazardous Materials The Proposed Project would result in increased storage and transportation of some hazardous materials, such as molten sulfur. The net change of hazardous materials input and output from the Refinery resulting from the Proposed Project is shown in Table 3-5. This table shows only the imports and exports that would change as a result of this Proposed Project. 3.5 Project Construction

The following sections provide information on the construction phase of the Proposed Project. Implementation of the Proposed Project is scheduled to begin in the first quarter of 2007. Startup of some operations would occur throughout the second and third quarter of 2008. Final tie-ins and modifications to existing process units are scheduled during turnarounds planned for the third quarter of 2008.

3.5.1 Site Preparation The new hydrocracking equipment would be constructed on a previously developed plot space adjacent to the existing hydrocracker. The new Sulfur Recovery Unit (SRU) is planned within an

7 As part of this proposed project, ConocoPhillips would install a sulfur degassing system for the molten sulfur truck transport system. With use of the sulfur degassing system, the sulfur would contain less than 10 ppm of H2S.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-35 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

existing fire training area, south and adjacent to the existing SRUs. The new Hydrogen Plant would be constructed on existing plot space of former Unit 210.

Excess soil generated from these activities would be reused or stored on-site. Other materials, such as asphalt and concrete, would be transported off-site for recycling or disposal at appropriately permitted disposal sites. Hydrocarbon-containing soils would be handled consistent with the Refinery’s approved Soils Management Plan (RWQCB, 2005).

3.5.2 Construction Labor Force Depending on whether the peak construction period for the Hydrogen Plant and the remaining Proposed Project components overlap, the Proposed Project’s construction workforce is expected to reach between 484 and 834 workers at its peak. This workforce would include cement finishers, ironworkers, pipe fitters, welders, carpenters, boilermakers, electricians, riggers, painters, operators, and laborers.

3.5.3 Construction Materials and Services During construction, deliveries would be required of materials such as concrete, structural steel, pipe and fittings, vessels and equipment, electrical equipment, and insulation. Deliveries would also be necessary for additional construction services equipment (e.g., portable toilets, temporary office trailers for construction contractors). Materials would be delivered by truck. Depending on construction sequence and overlap between the Hydrogen Plant and the remaining Proposed Project components, it is estimated that there would be 20 to 40 truck deliveries per day during the peak construction period, which is anticipated to last approximately four to six months.

3.5.4 Construction Traffic Based on an occupancy rate8 of 1.1, a peak of 460 additional two-way trips per day is anticipated during construction: 440 worker commute trips and 20 truck trips to bring project equipment and supplies to the Refinery. In addition, a peak of 338 additional two-way trips per day during construction is anticipated for the proposed Hydrogen Plant: 318 worker commute trips and 20 truck trips to bring project equipment and supplies to the Hydrogen Plant site.

No physical entrance, roadway, or intersection improvements are proposed to mitigate the effects of the anticipated construction traffic volume. Construction traffic would be encouraged to use the Cummings Skyway interchange from I-80 and the north gate(s) of the Refinery. ConocoPhillips constructed the Cummings Skyway interchange several years ago to minimize Refinery traffic through the community of Rodeo. Project construction workers would be required to park in various off-and-onsite Refinery lots (see Figure 3-10).

8 The average vehicle occupancy is 1.1. This is an engineering estimate based on the experience of the Construction Management Contractor. The occupancy number is between 1.25 and 1.5 persons per vehicle. The 1.1 average vehicle occupancy is their low estimate reduced by 10 percent (and rounded) for conservatism.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-36 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project SOURCE: ConocoPhillips Figure 3-10 Project Site Plan 3. Project Description

3.6 Maintenance Activities Operation of the Refinery requires substantial ongoing maintenance activities. Maintenance is needed so that all Refinery process units operate within their design parameters, especially for emissions and pressure containing equipment, and to assure that products meet quality and quantity goals. Regular maintenance is essential to the overall safe operation of the Refinery. The relationship of maintenance activities to Refinery operational reliability and safety are discussed in Section 4.7, Public Health and Section 4.8, Public Safety. A list of the current, ongoing or planned maintenance-related projects is provided below:

PHA stands for Process Hazards Analysis. This is a required by OSHA (under 29 CFR 1910.119) for us to review our processes and find potential hazards and make physical changes to prevent them. We are required to revalidate the process hazards every 5 years. From a maintenance standpoint, we should probably change the language to read Unit Process Hazards Analysis Recommendation Items. These recommendations come from the PHAs and some are implemented during maintenance activities.

• Controls Modernization • Heater Interlock Improvements • Fire Fighting Infrastructure Improvements • Hydrogen Makeup Compressor Motor • Tank Turnarounds & Double Bottoms • Safety Instrument Systems • Marine Terminal Hose Crane Replacement • Cathodic Protection Repair Program • Upgrade Electrical Program • Steam Power Plant Reliability • Unit Process Hazards Analysis (PHA) Recommendation Items9 • Optimize Refinery Compressed Air • Emergency Isolation Valve Upgrade Program • Critical Equipment Monitoring Program • Marine Terminal Upgrade • Replace Reflux Drum at U-200 • Mist Lubrication • Upgrade Vacuum Tower Bottoms Pump • Replace Convection Piping • Replace Sulfur Recovery Plant Vapor Piping • Facility Siting Building Upgrades • Replace Tank Seals • Upgrade Pump Seals

In addition to the ongoing activities, scheduled large-scale maintenance actions, called turnarounds, are also necessary. The term “turnaround” refers to the period of time when Refinery equipment is down for maintenance and inspections, and is not available to process feedstocks, as opposed to Refinery equipment’s typical 24-hours–a-day, 365-days-a-year operation. There are a

9 PHA are required by OSHA (under 29 CFR 1910.119) for ConocoPhillips to review their processes to find potential hazards and make physical changes to prevent them. These are required to be revalidated every 5 years. Some recommendations from these PHA are implemented during maintenance activities.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-38 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Project Description

number of reasons to schedule a period when equipment would be out of operation. Some of these reasons are:

• To inspect the internals of Refinery vessels • To clean pipe and vessel internals • To upgrade existing Refinery equipment and vessels • To renew catalysts in vessels which do not use continuous regeneration • To make connections for new equipment being installed at the Refinery • To perform maintenance or inspection on critical equipment • To repair and renew piping and equipment before they fail

Turnarounds are termed major when significant portions of the Refinery are shut down for extended periods of time; minor turnarounds may affect only certain units, or parts of the total Refinery, for short periods of time. Major turnarounds usually occur between 3 to 5 years apart. Minor turnarounds may occur less than 1 year to 3 years apart. Refinery turnarounds affect production. Therefore, Refinery staff plans carefully, so that work would be accomplished quickly in a turnaround and that process units can be started up again as soon as possible. The planning includes insuring all necessary supplies and equipment are onsite and available when needed. Refinery maintenance and technical staff, as well as additional contract maintenance staff, work in shifts around the clock to minimize the duration of a turnaround.

Turnarounds may take place routinely, but the Refinery usually plans major unit turnarounds to occur several years apart to maximize the overall production of the Refinery. A Refinery major maintenance turnaround is scheduled to coincide for the units affected by this Proposed Project, during which certain processing units would be shut down for about four to five weeks. A major turnaround offers the chance to change other equipment and processes in the Refinery during that scheduled downtime, such as the planned improvements to the Refinery crude units. Thus, the turnaround schedule becomes the controlling factor when planning and scheduling upgrades or other major changes to the process equipment at the Refinery.

3.7 Permits and Approvals Required The following additional permits and approvals may be required for this Proposed Project:

• A BAAQMD Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate; • Review by the RWQCB of ConocoPhillips’ existing NPDES Permit; • Contra Costa County Land Use Permit, grading and building permits; • Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit.

References – Project Description California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), San Francisco Bay Region, Order no. R2-2005-0026 Updated Waste Discharge Requirements and Rescission of Order no. 97-027 for ConocoPhillips Company, San Francisco Refinery, 1380 San Pablo Ave., Rodeo, CA, Contra Costa County, June 15, 2005.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 3-39 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report CHAPTER 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.0 Approach to the Analysis of Impacts

To achieve the objectives of the Proposed Project, the ConocoPhillips Refinery would modify existing and install new refining equipment. The nature of the Proposed Project as described by the applicant includes substantial flexibility as to whether and how to implement the various project components, and therefore a range of variables must be considered in the impact analysis.

4.0.1 Project Variables

Design Detailed designs of the Proposed Project components themselves are not available; however the general changes in operation and the major pieces of equipment (including prominent physical features) are known. Dimensions are provided only for Proposed Project components of substantial size and those dimensions are necessarily approximate.

Location All modifications would be located within the Refinery boundaries, generally placed among similar existing equipment. The locations of the Proposed Project components are noted or discussed if those locations are not close to the related existing facilities.

Schedule Construction of the Proposed Project is scheduled to begin in the first quarter of 2007. Startup of some operations would occur throughout the second and third quarter of 2008. Final tie-ins and modifications to existing process units are scheduled to take place during turnarounds planned for the third quarter of 2008.

Certainty Although ConocoPhillips has proposed this project and intends to pursue it on the schedule described, as with any project of this complexity and magnitude, portions of the project may not be constructed on the schedule or may not be constructed at all.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

4.0.2 Project Impact Analysis A refinery consists of process units that cannot operate independently. Changes in the operation of one process unit typically result in changes to the operations of other process units. The individual contributions of each affected interdependent refinery component result in an impact of the Proposed Project that is the sum of these individual contributions. Examples of such impacts include visual, air quality, noise and traffic impacts. The analysis in this EIR presents the impacts that would result from implementing the full Proposed Project, which is construction and operation of each and every component described as part of the Proposed Project. In nearly all cases, the analysis of the full Proposed Project reveals the greatest or worst-case impacts that could occur under any combination of components and leads to the mitigations that would be necessary to reduce those worst-case impacts to less than significant.

In a few instances, however, the worst-case impact for a given environmental issue might not occur under the full Proposed Project, but would occur as a result of one of the project variables. Thus, the impact analysis in this EIR also considers the possible effects of the “variables”— Design, Location, Schedule and Certainty—in the Proposed Project on environmental impacts. If any aspect of these four variables would result in a substantive difference in the environmental impact of the Proposed Project or in the mitigation that might be applied, those aspects are discussed and the individual effects are traced in the appropriate chapters and sections of this EIR. If these variables would not result in an increase in impact or require a material change in mitigation, they may not be discussed.

In the event that specific operational considerations, dimensions of the components, equipment locations, variations in the timing of construction, or the absence of any Proposed Project component were critical to identifying or mitigating a potential environmental impact of the Proposed Project, these factors are discussed under the related impact or mitigation presentations in this chapter.

Each of the following impact analysis sections begins with a summary of issues and impacts associated with the area of environmental review considered in that section. The summary is followed by a detailed discussion and analysis of the current environmental setting, regulatory considerations, impacts of the Proposed Project and, where appropriate, mitigation measures. Each section also includes a discussion and evaluation of the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project and the other Refinery and non-Refinery projects that could affect the specific impact issue.

4.0.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis Cumulative impacts were analyzed by considering the effects of the Proposed Project combined with other concurrent Refinery projects and approved or planned projects in the vicinity of the Refinery, as well as future development that could occur under adopted plans, such as the Contra Costa County General Plan, or applicable regional plans. The identifiable concurrent Refinery and non-Refinery projects are described in Section 5.2.3, Specific Projects Considered in the

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

Cumulative Analysis. The cumulative impact analysis considers the interaction of the Proposed Project impacts and impacts from other projects of the same type, or with the same effects, to create a cumulative impact affecting the same geographic area as that of the Proposed Project impacts. Following the CEQA Guidelines, the extent of the area considered for each cumulative effect was set to be appropriate to that environmental issue.

For cumulative projects within the Refinery, information was available to consider these projects at a relatively substantial level of quantitative detail, while for cumulative projects outside the Refinery, less project-specific information was available. Thus, the cumulative analysis for those non-Refinery projects could not be quantitative. In addition to effects of the identifiable cumulative projects, the cumulative impact analysis also considers outside cumulative effects, such as cumulative traffic growth, to develop the full cumulative analysis.

The results of the cumulative impact analysis are presented at the end of each respective section in this chapter and all cumulative impacts are presented together and considered as a whole in Section 5.2, Cumulative Impacts.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.1 Aesthetics, Visual Quality, and Light and Glare

The Proposed Project would be located within the developed area of the Refinery. Construction and operation would not have a substantial adverse effect on aesthetics, visual quality, or light and glare. • The Proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surrounding area. • The Proposed Project would not impact a scenic vista. • A temporary increase in light and glare would occur during peak construction times, but not to levels that would result in an adverse impact. Impacts to aesthetics, visual quality, and light and glare would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

4.1.1 Introduction This section evaluates the potential impacts of the Proposed Project in regards to aesthetics, visual quality, and light and glare. The evaluation considers existing visual conditions and utilizes computer-generated visual simulations illustrating the “before” and “after” character of the Proposed Project site. The potential impacts on the existing natural and developed environment are also described, focusing on the compatibility of the Proposed Project with existing conditions.

4.1.2 Setting 4.1.2.1 Regional Setting Contra Costa County stretches approximately 40 miles from west to east and approximately 20 miles from north to south. The County covers a total of 805 square miles, of which approximately 732 square miles are land with the remainder consisting of water areas (Contra Costa County, 2005). The physical environment is diverse, with the western and central areas providing much of the urban and suburban character, and the eastern portion containing most of the agricultural communities. The topography of the area includes hilly terrain, as well as the low-lying and relatively flat coastal terrain that gradually slopes down to the edge of San Pablo Bay. The shoreline area provides a highly scenic setting with views of San Pablo Bay. These views of major ridgelines provide a rural character for an area that is rapidly developing. Vegetation in the area consists primarily of grassland in the upland areas with scattered trees, and salt marsh vegetation along the shoreline. The natural environment is the main attribute of the area’s positive visual character.

The town of Rodeo, which varies in character from open space areas to densely developed industrial uses, is located to the south of the Proposed Project site. The area to the north is a mix of industrial and residential character, with the waterfront containing shore terminal structures followed by scattered residential neighborhoods. The San Pablo Bay is immediately west of the Refinery. The waterfront includes a mix of land characters, such as salt marshes, railroad tracks,

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.1-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Aesthetics, Visual Quality, and Light and Glare commercial and industrial activities, housing, and parkland. The waterfront is one of Rodeo’s biggest assets, however, access is limited both visually (by the service commercial type buildings along San Pablo Avenue) and physically (by the Southern Pacific Railroad) (Contra Costa County, 2005). The topography of the surrounding area ranges in elevation from 10 feet mean sea level (msl) near the water’s edge, to approximately 200 feet msl in some single-family detached residential areas, and up to 300 feet msl in the hills to the northeast of the developed portion of the Refinery.

Scenic Routes As stated in the County’s General Plan (Contra Costa County, 2005), a scenic route is defined as “a road, street, or freeway, which traverses a scenic corridor of relatively high visual or cultural value”.

The scenic routes in the Proposed Project vicinity include the following:

• Cummings Skyway, is located approximately 0.5 miles northeast of the Refinery. The designation starts at the San Pablo Avenue and Cummings Skyway intersection, and ends where Cummings Skyway crosses State Route 4/John Muir Parkway to the east. • San Pablo Avenue is designated as a scenic route, and the designation begins at San Pablo Avenue and First Street in the western portion of Rodeo and ends where San Pablo Avenue crosses Interstate 80 (I-80) in Crockett. • Crockett Boulevard intersects Cummings Highway, and the designation starts in the town of Crockett and ends where the route intersects Cummings Highway. The scenic highways in the Proposed Project vicinity include the following:

• The segment of State Route 4 from Hercules to the intersection with Railroad Avenue is proposed for State designation as a scenic highway. State Route 4 is located approximately one mile southeast of the Refinery. The views protected from these scenic routes include San Pablo Bay and undeveloped hillsides. Views from these routes near the Proposed Project site are of the Refinery and surrounding areas, and not of the scenic views protected in the Contra Costa County General Plan (Contra Costa County, 2005).

Scenic Waterways and Ridges The General Plan Open Space Element contains policies to protect scenic waterways and ridges (Contra Costa County, 2005). There are no designated scenic ridges in the vicinity if the Refinery. The Refinery is located on the shore of San Pablo Bay, which is a designated scenic waterway. The General Plan defines scenic waterways as “watercourses, which receive use by fishing and recreational boat traffic and traverse areas of significant scenic quality” (Contra Costa County, 2005). The scenic waterway designation for San Pablo Bay applies to the waterway and its shoreline. Along the San Pablo Bay waterfront, a variety of uses exists, such as the water-oriented industrial uses, which require deep-water access, such as the Refinery. Other activities, such as the residential development to the west of San Pablo Avenue and south of Garretson Avenue, and the park like setting of Wilson Point, occur as well.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.1-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Aesthetics, Visual Quality, and Light and Glare

Public View Corridors The Refinery is visible from several public view corridors. General public view corridors include public roadways, residential communities, and commercial and industrial areas. See Figure 4.1-1 for a map showing the viewpoint locations, which are discussed in detail below.

Viewpoint R-1 in Figure 4.1-2 shows the visual character from a public viewpoint area on Cummings Skyway. Viewpoint R-1 is approximately three-quarters of a mile from the Refinery, on Cummings Skyway, east of the San Pablo Avenue intersection and west of I-80. As shown, the viewpoint from Cummings Skyway to the northeast of the site is from an elevation lower than the Refinery, and shows the Tormey neighborhood in the foreground of the tank farm that is located on the northern portion of the Refinery property. The Tormey neighborhood consists of about 15 homes located along Old Country Road. As one goes down into Tormey, the view of the Refinery becomes more obstructed by the hill and the extended berm. The new stack flare and building at the Hydrogen Plant would be behind the berm and/or the tanks and would not be visible from this viewpoint. No other new equipment would be visible.

The view of the Refinery is more obvious for motorists traveling east as compared to views for westbound motorists, as views from I-80 westbound are slightly obstructed due to vegetation, road curvature, and the difference in elevation between the road and Refinery. Interstate 80 eventually transects the Refinery, separating the main industrial areas from a portion of the tank farm. Although not a designated scenic route, I-80 serves as a major corridor to and from the Sacramento Valley and the Bay Area.

Viewpoint N-3 in Figure 4.1-2 provides the view from the residential community of Victoria by the Bay in the City of Hercules, located approximately one-half mile to the south of the Refinery boundary. The photograph was taken at the dead-end of Schooner Cove. From this community, views of the Refinery are distant and the industrial character of the structures blend together. Commercial and industrial areas occur to the south and southwest of the Proposed Project site along the waterfront and in downtown Rodeo.

On Figure 4.1-3, Viewpoint N-1 depicts the view from the intersection of San Pablo Avenue and California Street, near the Bayo Vista residential community. Bayo Vista is a housing development containing 250 units and is the largest public housing development in the unincorporated area of the County. The insets on the photos identify the location of the Derrick (Unit 200), which is adjacent to the proposed Hydrogen Plant Stack and Building location. Viewpoint N-1 also shows the open space area, which is adjacent to the Refinery and is enclosed by a chain link fence, and the powerline structures adjacent to San Pablo Avenue. The Derrick (Unit 200), the tallest structure in this view, and the Refinery stacks are shown as well. On Figure 4.1-3, the “a” view shows the Refinery as it now exists, while the “b” view shows the Refinery as it would appear from this viewpoint with the Proposed Project in place.

Figure 4.1-4 portrays a public view from Tullibee Road and California Street and shows the rooftops of the Tullibee Court public housing in the foreground. These views continue by showing the Derrick (Unit 200) and Refinery stacks. The Tullibee Court neighborhood is located

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.1-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report Unit 120 Unit 240 LEGEND New Hydrogen CCROCKETTROCKETT Plant Hydrocracker Expansion R-1 Property Line SSanan PabloPablo BBayay Roadways 80

R-1 Cummings Skyway

N-1 R-2 I-80 West Units 234/236/238 Sulfur Recovery Units R-2 Neighborhoods N-2 RRODEOODEO Bayo Vista (Bayo Vista Child N-1 Development Center, San Pablo Ave & California St.) N-3 N-2 Bayo Vista (Public Housing Complex, Tullibee Court) HERCULESHERCULES N-3 Victoria by the Bay (San Pablo Ave & Victoria Crescent, Hercules)

0.5

Mile

ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project SOURCE: ConocoPhillips; GlobeXplorer, 2006. Figure 4.1-1 Viewpoint Location Map Viewpoint R-1 on Cummings Skyway (east of the San Pablo Avenue intersection)

Viewpoint N-3, from Victoria by the Bay neighborhood (at the dead end of Schooner Cove)

ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project SOURCE: ConocoPhillips Figure 4.1-2 Photo Representation of Project Area Viewpoint N-1a, Intersection of Pablo Avenue and California Street at the Bayo Vista Child Development Center (Before Project)

Viewpoint N-1b, Intersection of Pablo Avenue and California Street with simulation of Hydrogen Plant (After Project)

ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project SOURCE: ConocoPhillips Figure 4.1-3 Visual Simulation of Project Site Viewpoint N-2, Tullibee Court Public Housing, Bayo Vista (Before Project)

Viewpoint N-2, Tullibee Court Public Housing, Bayo Vista (After Project)

ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project SOURCE: ConocoPhillips Figure 4.1-4 Visual Simulation of Project Site 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Aesthetics, Visual Quality, and Light and Glare in the Bayo Vista residential area, adjacent to the southern portion of the Refinery. The Bayo Vista residential area includes a mix of single-family homes and apartment buildings. On Figure 4.1-4, the “a” view shows the Refinery as it now exists, while the “b” view shows the Refinery as it would appear from this viewpoint with the Proposed Project in place.

For impact discussion purposes, Figures 4.1.3 and 4.1-4 also show the visual character of the Proposed Project components, which is discussed in Section 4.1.5, Impacts and Mitigation Measures.

4.1.2.2 Project Setting The Refinery has been continuously operating at its present site since Union Oil Company originally built it in February 1896. The principal activity is the manufacturing of transportation fuels; the facility converts crude oil and other feedstock into gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel. Byproducts of the Refinery include sulfur and petroleum coke. The Proposed Project area consists of refining process units and support units.

The Refinery is the dominant visual feature in the area, particularly from I-80, which separates the main industrial area from a portion of the tank farm. The Refinery contains tall stacks, large tanks and massed mechanical equipment that exhibit complex industrial forms, lines and geometric shapes. These shapes produce a strong industrial statement in a landscape that also contains rolling hills to the east and north, San Pablo Bay to the west, as well as residential areas to the south.

Figure 4.1-5 portrays views from Viewpoint R-2, on I-80 West, which is the main roadway in the area. Motorists driving in both directions have views of the Proposed Project site. The view shows the process units visible from I-80 West and was taken approximately 1,000 feet from the units. Figure 4.1-5 shows the area of the Refinery located east of San Pablo Avenue, which is the most densely developed area and contains the major petroleum processing equipment, such as crude distillation, gas fractionation, catalytic reforming, hydrogen production, hydrotreating, and utility operations. This area is where the majority of the Refinery stacks are located. Though not clearly shown in Figure 4.1-5, the oldest developed part of the Refinery is the western area, which includes the marine terminal, railcar operations, and product storage. The marine operations result in a contrasting visual character, with the high-rising cranes and equipment crane operations towering over the lowland marsh area below. The southern portion of the West Refinery area contains equipment salvage, parking, and the basin channels.

With the exception of the Unit 200 derrick, Hydrogen Plant stack, and the two flares, most of the stacks and coolers are less than 150 feet tall. In the main process block, the existing processing units are grouped together, sometimes creating solid walls of mechanical equipment relative to the size of five- to six-story buildings.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.1-8 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report Viewpoint R-2 on I-80 West (Before project)

Existing SRU Combustor Stacks (2 of 3) New SRU Thermal Incinerator Stack

Viewpoint R-2 on I-80 West (After project)

ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project SOURCE: ConocoPhillips Figure 4.1-5 Photo Representation of Project Area 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Aesthetics, Visual Quality, and Light and Glare

Flaring A flare is a device that burns gases as an alternative to releasing the vapors directly into the atmosphere. Flare systems provide for the safe combustion of excess gases that can occur during the startup and shutdown condition of process units and equipment.

Flare systems can avoid upset conditions and prevent serious incidents from occurring by releasing gas pressure. Typically, gases are recovered and used in the fuel gas system. In the event the flow to the Refinery vapor recovery system is greater than the capacity of the flare gas vapor recovery compressor, or non-routine unit depressurization occurs or the vapor specific gravity is too light, the vapor recovery system would vent to the flare(s) for combustion and safe release of the gases. The visual effects of flares depend on the size of the flare plume, existing atmospheric conditions, and the time of day (or night) of the event. When existing Refinery flares are in use, the flame may be visible from I-80, San Pablo Avenue, and the Bayo Vista neighborhood (ConocoPhillips, 2005).

The Refinery has compiled data summarizing flare events for the years of 2000–2002. The flare reports describe the date and duration of the event, the size of the observed flare, ambient atmospheric conditions at the time of the event, and any other pertinent information regarding the nature of the flare. Recorded flare events occur approximately 20 times a year and are reported to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) (ConocoPhillips, 2005). The BAAQMD regulations require that flow data from all flaring events be reported monthly. These data are available online at www.baaqmd.gov/enf/flares.

Water Vapor Plumes During the petroleum refining process, steam can be generated and used in many process units. Water is used in cooling and scrubbing processes, leading to the potential for visible plumes to be formed. The formation of visible water vapor plumes from Refinery process units is a function of varying local meteorological conditions, including air temperature, wind speed and atmospheric humidity, as well as variation in the actual refining process itself. These plumes typically appear either directly emanating from a process unit stack or forming a slight distance away from the process unit stack. Plumes of this type are generally white in color and are typically composed mostly of small, condensed water droplets. If the requisite atmospheric conditions exist (generally low temperature with calm winds and relative high humidity), it is possible for a water vapor plume to form. The plume would remain visible until the water in the plume evaporates into the air surrounding the plume. The plume would extend away from its formation point flowing downwind in the direction of the local wind flow. As it moves, it may spread out both vertically and horizontally, dependent again on the existing local meteorological and process unit conditions. Plumes from Refinery operations can be visible from I-80, San Pablo Avenue, and the Bayo Vista neighborhood (ConocoPhillips, 2005).

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.1-10 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Aesthetics, Visual Quality, and Light and Glare

4.1.2.3 Regulatory Setting Bay Area Air Quality Management District Flaring Regulations The BAAQMD requires flare monitoring at petroleum refineries per Regulation 12, Rule 11, which was adopted in January 2005. In general, the rule prohibits routine flaring, which does not include flaring that occurs as a result of process malfunctions, start-ups and shutdowns or where due to its quality or quantity gas produced in the refining process cannot be used in refinery fuel gas systems or otherwise redirected. Under the rule, a refinery would be required to prepare a Flare Minimization Plan (FMP) for each flare at its facility. The FMP must include details regarding the flare-associated process units and equipment, operating practices and procedures, and steps the refinery has taken and can take in the future to minimize the frequency and duration of flaring events. Each FMP is to be reviewed and approved by the BAAQMD. Requiring each refinery to prepare the FMPs applicable to its flares allows each refinery to determine how best to minimize flaring while considering its needs for operating flexibility. See Section 4.2.2.2, Regulatory Setting for more information about the Refinery’s FMP.

Contra Costa County General Plan The Contra Costa County General Plan contains policies that regulate visual resources in the Proposed Project area. These policies are included in the Transportation and Circulation Element, the Open Space Element, and the Land Use Element. There are no policies for visual resources that are specific to Rodeo in the General Plan. As previously discussed, San Pablo Avenue (Old Highway 40) is designated as a scenic route in the County’s Transportation Element. In addition, the Refinery is located on the shoreline of San Pablo Bay, which is a designated scenic waterway. As such, the General Plan Land Use and Open Space Elements also contain goals and policies that seek to protect scenic waterways and ridges summarized as follows:

• Encourage aesthetically and functionally compatible development which reinforces the physical character and desired images of the County. • Protect major scenic ridges, to the extent practical, from structures, roadways, or other activities which would harm their scenic qualities. • Preserve and protect areas of identified high scenic value, where practical, and in accordance with the Land Use element map. • Preserve the scenic qualities of the San Francisco Bay / Delta estuary system and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River / Delta shoreline. 4.1.4 Significance Criteria, Methodology and Discussion of No Impacts Significance Criteria The evaluation of visual impact considers potential effects on publicly accessible views. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicate that a project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.1-11 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Aesthetics, Visual Quality, and Light and Glare a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; and d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

The significance determination in visual analyses is based on consideration of: 1) the extent of change related to project visibility from key public vantage points; 2) the degree of visual contrast and compatibility in scale and character between project elements and the existing surroundings; and 3) project conformance with public policies regarding visual and urban design quality. The methodology employed for assessing aesthetic impacts includes consideration of the viewshed and development of computer-generated visual simulations.

Discussion of No Impacts Review and comparison of the setting circumstances and Proposed Project characteristics with significance criteria stated above, clearly show that no aesthetic impacts would result to scenic vistas and resources. The following discusses the reasoning supporting this conclusion: a. Would the Proposed Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

The Proposed Project consists of the addition of process units to distributed locations within the matrix of the existing Refinery. As discussed in Section 4.1.2.1 Regional Setting, the scenic vistas proximate to the Proposed Project are not affected in any negative way because with the exception of San Pablo Bay (a scenic waterway), the Proposed Project would not be visible from these scenic vistas. When viewed from San Pablo Bay the Proposed Project would be visible but would be perceived as insubstantially more dense industrial facility. Thus, the Proposed Project would have no impact on scenic vistas. b. Would the Proposed Project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

Development of the Proposed Project would occur entirely within the developed portion of the Refinery property and would not affect any known scenic resource. No impact would occur.

4.1.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Placement of the new facilities and modification of other existing facilities would result in physical changes at the Refinery. As all of the new equipment would be located within the active area of the Refinery, the changes would not be immediately obvious to a casual observer. The visual and aesthetic changes are described and evaluated as follows:

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.1-12 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Aesthetics, Visual Quality, and Light and Glare

Impact 4.1-1: The construction and operations of the Proposed Project would add new equipment and facilities in developed, industrial portions of the Refinery and could degrade the visual character of the local setting from public view corridors such as I-80, a heavily traveled motorway or existing residential areas in the vicinity of the Refinery. Because the new and modified equipment would be similar in size, form and scale, and extent to the existing Refinery equipment, visual change in the appearance of the Refinery would be relatively small. As a result, the visual impact of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Construction equipment, including several cranes up to 300 feet in height, could temporarily affect the visual characteristics of the Refinery. The Proposed Project construction is scheduled to begin the first quarter of 2007 and continue through the third quarter of 2008. Impacts from the temporary presence of construction equipment would be short-term in nature and would not continue after completion of the Proposed Project. As a result, visual impacts from temporary placement of construction equipment would not be significant.

There could also be a temporary increase in night lighting at the facility during the peak of construction. Refer to Impact 4.1-4 below for a discussion of potential light and glare impacts from construction equipment.

Startup of some Proposed Project operations would occur throughout the second and third quarter of 2008. Proposed Project components would occupy approximately nine acres of the 495-acre Refinery at various locations. Proposed Project operations would occur entirely within the active, developed area of the Refinery, a site zoned and planned for heavy industrial use. The Proposed Project would involve construction or modification of several process units and support equipment; the new and modified units would be very similar in nature, size, and appearance to numerous existing facilities that would surround them. In addition to the new equipment described in this section, modifications would include the addition of piping, pumps, heat exchangers, and other components. These components would be constructed at ground level and within the existing process unit framework; as such, they would not be visible from outside of the Refinery. The simulations shown on Figures 4.1-3 and 4.1-4 identify the proposed Hydrogen Plant stack, a major element that would be distinctly visible from outside of the Refinery. The stack would blend in with the existing equipment around it, as shown on both figures.

The Proposed Project would include the following changes to the Refinery:

• Unicracker Units – would modify the existing hydrocracking unit (Unit 240) and construct a new Unit 246 unicracker; both to be located in the center of the Refinery process unit area. The new unicracker reactor columns would be similar in size to the existing columns and would generally be too low to be viewed from most offsite locations. If visible, they would not be readily distinguished from the existing columns. New product stripper and vacuum flasher vessels would be smaller structures similar in height to the majority of the shorter equipment within the process unit.

• A new Process Heater would be located at the Hydrocracker, which would have a stack approximately 135 feet high and 6 feet in diameter. This structure would be visible from

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.1-13 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Aesthetics, Visual Quality, and Light and Glare

some offsite views, but would be similar in height and adjacent to other existing heater stacks.

• Reformer and UNISAR© – modifications to the Reformer (Unit 244) and UNISAR (Unit 248) to increase capacity would require changing pumps, valves, and heat exchangers. The existing Reformer (Unit 244) would have the existing reactors modified and / or replaced. These reactor vessels would be of similar size to the existing columns. The new reactor columns would generally be too low to be seen from most offsite locations. If visible, they would not be readily distinguished from the existing columns. New product stripper and vacuum flasher vessels would be smaller structures similar in height to the majority of the shorter equipment within the process unit.

• A new Hydrogen Plant would be located to the east of San Pablo Avenue near the roadway and would be visible from the road along with the other existing process units. There would be a new structure approximately 70 feet high. The proposed Hydrogen Plant furnace stack would be approximately 120 feet high. This structure would be visible from some off-site views, but would be similar in height and adjacent to other existing heater stacks.

• The new Hydrogen Plant Cooling Tower would be about 38 feet by feet by 28 feet with two cells, each 12 feet in diameter. The structure would generally not be visible offsite, but on occasion, water vapor plumes from the cooling tower could be visible, depending on atmospheric conditions. The plume would be similar in appearance to plumes formed from the several existing cooling towers at the Rodeo Refinery.

• A new six-foot diameter Safety Flare, also 120 feet high, would be located adjacent to the Hydrogen Plant furnace stack. This safety flare would combust only Hydrogen Plant product gases (primarily hydrogen and carbon monoxide) during emergency process upsets, startup, shutdown, or maintenance events. Hydrogen burns at very high temperatures and has a blue flame that is generally not visible against the sky.

• Modifications to the existing Sulfur Plant would include addition or replacement of smaller vessels for amine, sour water stripping, and molten sulfur. These low-lying structures would not be visible offsite. There would be no change to the existing Sulfur Plant stacks.

• A new Sulfur Plant would be constructed, having piping and vessels and a new thermal incinerator stack approximately 200 to 300 feet high. There would be no new buildings associated with this unit, but the new thermal incinerator stack would be visible from I-80.

• An existing railcar loading rack would be modified to load butane. This loading rack would be located near the western shore of the Refinery just west of the long wharf at the Refinery. The dimensions are not yet available, but should be similar to the existing structures. The new loading facility would be within an existing rail loading facility. If visible to the public, there would be minimal discernable change to the view.

The simulations shown in Figure 4.1-3, 4.1-4, and 4.1-5 identify the Proposed Project equipment and compare the visual character of the Proposed Project to the existing condition. As shown, the Proposed Project new and modified units would be very similar in nature, size, and appearance to numerous existing Refinery facilities that would surround them.

In general, with the Proposed Project, only slight increases in development within the Refinery’s process block would be visible. Tall, slender towers would continue to be visible at the terminus

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.1-14 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Aesthetics, Visual Quality, and Light and Glare of San Pablo Avenue, with views of the hills rising in the distance. From this vantage point, the proposed new towers would appear consistent in height with the existing towers. The existing hydrogen heater stack and the two flares would continue to be the tallest structures visible within the process block. The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, nor would it substantially damage scenic resources. The visual impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.

Impact 4.1-2: Proposed Project operations could cause increases in the frequency and/or magnitude of flaring events at the Refinery. These increases could degrade the existing visual character of the Refinery and potentially add to the existing light and glare from the Refinery. This impact would be less than significant.

As stated in Section 4.1.2.2, flaring occurs because of over-pressurization in Refinery processes and is an unforeseeable and unscheduled event. Flaring is performed as a protective measure to prevent uncontrolled release of combustible and toxic gases to the atmosphere. Flaring can also occur during shutdown for maintenance of some process equipment.

When existing Refinery flares are in use, the flame can be visible, particularly from Rodeo and I- 80. The visual effects of flares depend on the size of the flare plume, existing atmospheric conditions, and the time of day (or night) of the event.

New connections to the Refinery flare relief system would be installed as a Proposed Project component to connect the pressure relief valve discharges of the new equipment to the Refinery blowdown and flare system. These relief valves protect equipment from overpressuring by discharging into the blowdown system if the pressure exceeds the design pressure of the equipment being protected.

Proposed Project facilities and equipment are being designed such that they would not add significant load to the Refinery flare in the event of a Refinery-wide power failure, which is the limiting design case for the Refinery flare and related major facilities (relief system headers and blowdown drum). In the event the flow to the Refinery vapor recovery system is greater than 200,000 standard cubic feet per hour (the capacity of the flare gas vapor recovery compressor), if non-routine unit depressurization occurs, or if the vapor specific gravity is too light, the vapor recovery system would vent to the Refinery flare(s) for safe disposal of the gases.

The new safety flare would combust only Hydrogen Plant product gases (primarily hydrogen and carbon monoxide) during emergency process upsets, startup, shutdown, or maintenance events. When in use, the flare would not be readily visible during the day since the flame color would be blue. The main visible aspect of daylight flaring would be the convection currents rising from the flare’s heat plume. At night, during flaring, observers would see a blue flame at the top of the

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.1-15 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Aesthetics, Visual Quality, and Light and Glare flare stack. At low flow rates, the flame pattern would be diffuse and easily deflected by the wind. At high flow rates, the pattern would be tighter, less diffuse, and not deflected as much by the wind.

The flaring events potentially resulting from the Proposed Project would be monitored and reported as required by the BAAQMD’s Air Regulation 12, Rule 11.

The quantity, duration, and intensity of flaring events resulting from the Proposed Project would not be discernable as compared to existing conditions, particularly to surrounding residents and motorists. Refinery flaring events as a result of the Proposed Project would occur in a manner that is consistent with current Refinery operations. As a result, the Proposed Project would have minimal effect on flaring at the Refinery. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.

Impact 4.1-3: Operation of the Proposed Project could create water vapor plumes visible to surrounding residents and motorists. Steam would be generated as a part of the Proposed Project and used in the proposed process units. In significant frequency, size and duration these water vapor plumes could degrade the existing visual character of the Refinery. This impact would be less than significant.

Proposed Project facilities and equipment would be designed so that they would not materially increase the frequency or intensity of water vapor plumes as compared to existing conditions, based on the occurrence of vapor plumes and their visibility to surrounding residents and motorists. Even so, the new Hydrogen Plant would have a small, new cooling tower about 38 feet by feet by 28 feet with two cells, each 12 feet in diameter. The structure would generally not be visible offsite, but on occasion, water vapor plumes from the cooling tower could be visible depending on atmospheric conditions. Steam would be generated as a part of the Proposed Project and used in the proposed process units. The formation of visible water vapor plumes from Refinery process units is a function of varying local meteorological conditions, including air temperature, wind speed and atmospheric humidity, as well as variation in the actual Refinery process itself.

The additional vapor plumes that would potentially result due to the Proposed Project would not be discernibly different from to existing conditions. Their occurrence would be similar to and consistent with those that are seen under current Refinery operations. As a result, the plume would be similar in appearance to plumes formed from the several existing cooling towers at the Rodeo Refinery. The addition of new visible plumes under Proposed Project implementation would be a less-than-significant impact based on: 1) the frequency of expected occurrence to be consistent with current visible plume activity; 2) the probability that additional plumes would be visible would most likely occur at times when atmospheric conditions already cause fog and high humidity; and, 3) the height and dispersion of the plume would be elevated far above roadways so

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.1-16 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Aesthetics, Visual Quality, and Light and Glare would not be expected to interfere with visibility any more than do current plumes from the Refinery. Thus, effects related to vapor plume emissions would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.

Impact 4.1-4: The Proposed Project’s new facilities would add new lighting on site. The new lighting would be similar to the existing lighting at the Refinery, and the overall increase in light from the Proposed Project would be minor and difficult to perceive from beyond the perimeter of the site. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.

During construction, it is anticipated that the majority of activity would occur during daylight hours. Even so, it is possible that multiple work shifts could occur. This would result in a minor and temporary increase in night lighting at the facility during the peak of construction, when multiple work shifts are expected. Safety and security lighting could be installed internally around new equipment and at the perimeter near new equipment, to protect workers during nighttime hours. The lighting installed for Proposed Project construction purposes would be the minimum intensity necessary and would be installed in ways that minimize its impacts on the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible.

The temporary increases in night lighting due to Proposed Project construction would not be discernibly different from the current intermittent night lighting required during Refinery maintenance and turnarounds. Structures that would be illuminated would be within existing areas of the Refinery and would be surrounded by existing lighted equipment. The additional construction lighting would be short-term, and would not adversely affect adjacent residential or industrial uses.

Currently, the Refinery illuminates facilities in order for operations to continue throughout the night. The Proposed Project would require similar lighting, installed on the proposed facilities for safety reasons, including nighttime illumination. Permanent plant lighting would consist of high- pressure sodium luminaries with photocell control. Lighting would automatically turn on during twilight and nighttime hours for overall plant safety. The illumination levels would be in accordance with API (American Petroleum Institute) RP-540 and IES (Illuminating Engineering Society) recommendations. The new lighting would be similar to the lighting on the facilities currently onsite. Most of the new equipment would be installed at plots where other equipment is located and that already contains night lighting. While there may be more illumination at specific sites, the overall increase in light from the Refinery would be negligible and very difficult to perceive from beyond the perimeter of the site.

New equipment lighting would be directed appropriately to avoid disturbance to motorists. Area, or flood lighting, is not proposed as part of the long-term operation of the Proposed Project. The increase in operational lighting as a result of the Proposed Project would not be evident outside of the Refinery boundary during daytime or evening conditions. Therefore, the Proposed Project operations would not affect the amount of daytime light or glare in the area. Construction and

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.1-17 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Aesthetics, Visual Quality, and Light and Glare operation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact to light or glare for the Proposed Project area.

Mitigation: None required.

4.1.6 Cumulative Impacts to Aesthetics, Visual Quality, and Light and Glare Impact 4.1-5: The reasonably foreseeable projects at the Refinery would increase the intensity of the industrial appearance of the overall complex. However, none of the changes associated with individual projects are expected to adversely affect the visual character of the Refinery or surrounding areas. As such, the Proposed Project would result in a less- than-significant cumulative visual impact.

Other projects that are planned or in progress at the Refinery are either new or expanded processing units or routine maintenance activities1. These projects would be located within the existing Refinery complex, and would not expand industrial operations outside the processing, tank storage, and wastewater processing areas. Some staging and laydown areas used for construction of these foreseeable projects would be visible, and would contribute to the overall extent of disturbed, graded areas surrounding the main processing and tank storage facilities. Even so, the temporary location of new construction equipment would not significantly degrade the visual character of the area.

For operations, new processing facilities would be painted the same color scheme of the existing Refinery and would not represent any overall significant changes in the industrial appearance of the complex. As a result, the construction and operation of the Proposed Project, in addition to other Refinery projects and other non-Refinery development, would not result in cumulative impacts to aesthetics or visual character.

Mitigation: None required.

References – Aesthetics, Visual Quality, and Light and Glare ConocoPhillips. 2005. Rodeo Clean Fuels Expansion Project – Aesthetics Supplement. Document 0030030-01. November 2005, updated May 2006.

Contra Costa County, 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), January 2005.

1 These other reasonably foreseeable projects at the Refinery are discussed later in Section 5.2.3, Specific Projects Considered in the Cumulative Analysis,

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.1-18 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality

4.2.1 Introduction This section analyzes and evaluates the potential impacts of the Proposed Project on regional and local air quality from both stationary and mobile sources of air emissions. Mitigation measures are presented to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Development of this section was based on a review of existing documentation of air quality conditions in the region, air quality regulations from the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and information provided as part of the Proposed Project.

4.2.2 Setting This setting description provides an overview of region-specific information related to climate and topography; regulatory context followed by a discussion of plans, policies, and regulations; and existing air quality conditions pertaining to the Proposed Project area.

Air quality is affected by both the rate and location of pollutant emissions under the influence of meteorological conditions and topographic features that influence pollutant movement and dispersal. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability, and air temperature gradients interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutants and consequently affect air quality.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

The ConocoPhillips Refinery, and consequently the Proposed Project, is located in the Northern Alameda and West Contra Costa County climatological subregion of the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) Air Basin. This subregion stretches from Richmond to San Leandro. Its western boundary is defined by the San Francisco Bay and its eastern boundary by the Oakland-Berkeley Hills. In this area, marine air traveling through the Golden Gate, as well as across San Francisco, is a dominant weather factor. The Oakland-Berkeley Hills cause the westerly flow of air to split off to the north and south of Oakland, which causes diminished wind speeds. At the northern end, near the Proposed Project area, prevailing winds blow from the south-southwest.

4.2.2.1 Climate and Meteorology The potential for high pollutant concentrations developing at a given location depends upon the quantity of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere in the surrounding area or upwind, and the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the contaminated air. The atmospheric pollution potential, as the term is used here, is independent of the location of emission sources and is instead a function of factors such as topography and meteorology.

The climate of the greater San Francisco Bay Area, including Rodeo, is a Mediterranean-type climate characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. The climate is determined largely by a high-pressure system that is often present over the eastern Pacific Ocean off the West Coast of North America. In winter, the Pacific high-pressure system shifts southward, allowing storms to pass through the region. During summer and fall, air emissions generated within the Bay Area can combine with abundant sunshine under the restraining influences of topography and subsidence inversions to create conditions that are conducive to the formation of photochemical pollutants, such as ozone and secondary particulates, such as sulfates and nitrates.

The air pollution potential is lowest for those regions closest to the bay, due largely to good ventilation and less influx of pollutants from upwind sources. The occurrence of light winds in the evenings and early mornings occasionally results in elevated pollutant levels. Wind flow patterns are controlled by air circulation in the atmosphere, which is affected by air pressure and the variable topography of the coastal areas adjacent to the Carquinez Strait, which is the only sea-level gap between San Francisco Bay and the Central Valley. Prevailing winds in the Proposed Project area are from the west passing through the Carquinez Strait. During the summer and fall months, high pressure offshore coupled with low pressure in the Central Valley causes marine air to flow eastward through the Carquinez Strait.

The wind is strongest in the afternoon. Afternoon wind speeds of 15 to 20 mph are common throughout the strait region. Annual average wind speeds are eight mph in Rodeo, and nine to ten mph further east. Wind speeds may be strong locally in areas where air is channeled through a narrow opening, such as the Carquinez Strait. Figure 4.2-1 displays the windrose, which is a graphical summary of wind speed and direction information, at ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery during 2001 through 2003. The windrose shows the heavy influence of coastline orientation and the predominance of wind from the southwest.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

The air flowing in from the coast to the Central Valley, called the sea breeze, begins developing at or near ground level along the coast in late morning or early afternoon. As the day progresses, the sea breeze layer deepens and increases in velocity while spreading inland. The depth of the sea breeze depends in large part upon the height and strength of the inversion. If the inversion is low and strong, and hence stable, the flow of the sea breeze will be inhibited and stagnant conditions are likely to result.

Low wind speed contributes to the buildup of air pollution. Light winds occur most frequently during periods of low sun (fall and winter, and early morning) and at night.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project EIR SOURCE: ConocoPhillips Figure 4.2-1 Windrose for ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery (2001–2003)

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

4.2.2.2 Regulatory Setting Air quality within the air basin is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy-making, education, and a variety of programs. The air pollutants of concern and agencies primarily responsible for improving the air quality within the air basin and the pertinent regulations are further discussed in this section. This section discusses the criteria pollutants only; information regarding toxic air contaminants and their related health effects can be found in Section 4.07, Public Health.

Criteria Air Pollutants Regulation of air pollution is achieved through both national and state ambient air quality standards and emission limits for individual sources of air pollutants. As required by the Federal Clean Air Act, the US EPA has identified criteria pollutants and established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or national standards) to protect public health and welfare.

NAAQS have been established for ozone (O3), CO (carbon monoxide), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),

SO2 (sulfur dioxide), particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). These pollutants are called “criteria” air pollutants because standards have been established for each of them to meet specific public health and welfare criteria.

The NAAQS are defined as the maximum acceptable concentration that may be reached, but not exceeded more than once per year. California has adopted more stringent ambient air quality standards for most of the criteria air pollutants (CAAQS or state standards). Table 4.2-1 presents both sets of ambient air quality standards (i.e., national and state) and provides a brief discussion of the related health effects and principal sources for each pollutant. California has also established state ambient air quality standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride.

Ozone Ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and that can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. Ozone is not emitted directly into the atmosphere, but is a secondary air pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). ROG and NOx are known as precursor compounds for ozone. Significant ozone production generally requires ozone precursors to be present in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight for approximately three hours.

Ozone is a regional air pollutant because it is not emitted directly by sources, but is formed downwind of sources of ROG and NOx under the influence of wind and sunlight. Ozone concentrations tend to be higher in the late spring, summer, and fall, when the long sunny days combine with regional subsidence inversions to create conditions conducive to the formation and accumulation of secondary photochemical compounds, like ozone.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-4 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

TABLE 4.2-1 STATE AND NATIONAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT STANDARDS, EFFECTS, AND SOURCES

Averaging State National Pollutant Health and Pollutant Time Standard Standard Atmospheric Effects Major Pollutant Sources

Ozone, O3 1 Hour 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm High concentrations can Formed when reactive 8 Hour 0.07 ppm 0.08 ppm directly affect lungs, causing organic gases and NOx irritation. Long-term react in the presence of exposure may cause sunlight. Major sources damage to lung tissue. include on-road motor vehicles, solvent evaporation, and commercial / industrial mobile equipment. Carbon 1 Hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Classified as a chemical Internal combustion Monoxide, 8 Hour 9 ppm 9 ppm asphyxiant, CO interferes engines, primarily gasoline- CO with the transfer of fresh powered motor vehicles. oxygen to the blood and deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen. Nitrogen 1 Hour 0.25 ppm – Irritating to eyes and Motor vehicles, petroleum- Dioxide, Annual – 0.053 ppm respiratory tract. Colors refining operations, NO2 atmosphere reddish-brown. industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads. Sulfur 1 Hour 0.25 ppm – Irritates upper respiratory Fuel combustion, chemical Dioxide, 3 Hour – 0.5 ppm tract; injurious to lung plants, sulfur recovery SO2 24 Hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm tissue. Can yellow the plants, and metal Annual – 0.03 ppm leaves of plants, destructive processing. to marble, iron, and steel. Limits visibility and reduces sunlight. Respirable 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 May irritate eyes and Dust and fume-producing Particulate Annual 20 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 respiratory tract, decreases industrial and agricultural Matter, in lung capacity, causes operations, combustion, PM10 cancer and increased atmospheric photochemical mortality. Produces haze reactions, and natural and limits visibility. activities (e.g. wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). Fine 24 Hour – 65 µg/m3 Increases respiratory Fuel combustion in motor Particulate Annual 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 disease, lung damage, vehicles, equipment, and Matter, cancer, and premature industrial sources; PM2.5 death. Reduces visibility residential and agricultural and results in surface burning; also, formed from soiling. photochemical reactions of other pollutants, including NOx, SO2, and organics. Lead, Pb Monthly 1.5 µg/m3 – Disturbs gastrointestinal Present source: lead Quarterly – 1.5 µg/m3 system, and causes smelters, battery anemia, kidney disease, manufacturing & recycling and neuromuscular and facilities. Past source: neurological dysfunction. combustion of leaded gasoline.

NOTE: ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.

SOURCE: California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2004. Ambient Air Quality Standards, http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs.htm, webpage updated May 18, 2004.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-5 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

Carbon Monoxide Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a non-reactive pollutant that is a product of incomplete combustion and is mostly associated with motor vehicle traffic. High CO concentrations develop primarily during winter when periods of light winds combine with the formation of ground level temperature inversions (typically from the evening through early morning). These conditions result in reduced dispersion of vehicle emissions. Motor vehicles also exhibit increased CO emission rates at low air temperatures. When inhaled at high concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and other body tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease or anemia.

Particulate Matter

Particulate Matter PM10 and PM2.5 consist of particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter and 2.5 microns or less in diameter, respectively. PM10 and PM2.5 represent fractions of particulate matter that can be inhaled into the air passages and the lungs and can cause adverse health effects.

Particulate matter in the atmosphere results from many kinds of dust- and fume-producing industrial and agricultural operations, fuel combustion, and atmospheric photochemical reactions. Some sources of particulate matter, such as demolition and construction activities, are more local in nature, while others, such as vehicular traffic, have a more regional effect. Very small particles of certain substances (e.g., sulfates and nitrates) can cause lung damage directly, or can contain adsorbed gases (e.g., chlorides or ammonium) that may be injurious to health. Particulates also can damage materials and reduce visibility.

Hydrogen Sulfide Hydrogen sulfide is found in nature around some hot springs, geothermal sources, and oil fields (sour gas). It is also produced by anaerobic decomposition, and is sometimes called swamp gas.

The human nose can detect H2S at concentrations well below toxic levels. Heavier than air, this gas is considered obnoxious and unpleasant. At higher levels it desensitizes the nose, and can be fatal because it blocks oxygen uptake by the blood. Mainly a health threat to industrial workers, hydrogen sulfide is usually regulated to eliminate nuisance for nearby residents or property owners. California has established state ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide of 0.03 parts per million (ppm), or 42 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3).

Other Criteria Pollutants

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a combustion product of sulfur or sulfur-containing fuels such as coal, which are restricted in the Bay Area. Sulfur Dioxide is also a precursor to the formation of atmospheric sulfate, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and contributes to potential atmospheric sulfuric acid formation that could precipitate downwind as acid rain. The maximum

SO2 concentrations recorded in the Proposed Project area were well below federal and state standards. The Bay Area is likewise in attainment status with both federal and state SO2 standards.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-6 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

Ambient lead concentrations meet both the federal and state standards in the Bay Area and the Proposed Project area. Lead has a range of adverse neurotoxin health effects, and was formerly released into the atmosphere primarily via leaded gasoline. The phase-out of leaded gasoline in California resulted in decreasing levels of atmospheric lead. As the Proposed Project would not introduce any new sources of lead emissions, lead emissions are not required to be quantified by the BAAQMD and are not further evaluated in this analysis.

Regulatory Agencies The US EPA is responsible for implementing the myriad of programs established under the Federal Clean Air Act, such as establishing and reviewing the NAAQS and judging the adequacy of State Implementation Plans (SIPs), but has delegated the authority to implement many of the federal programs to the states while retaining an oversight role to ensure that the programs continue to be implemented.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for establishing and reviewing the state standards, compiling the California SIP, securing approval of that plan from US EPA, and identifying toxic air contaminants. CARB also regulates mobile sources of emissions in California, such as construction equipment, trucks, and automobiles, and oversees the activities of California’s air quality management districts, which are organized at the County or regional level. County or regional air quality management districts are primarily responsible for regulating stationary sources at industrial and commercial facilities within their geographic areas and for preparing the air quality plans that are required under the federal Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act.

The regional air quality plans prepared by Air Quality Management Districts and Air Pollution Control Districts throughout the state are compiled by the CARB to form the SIP. The local air districts also have the responsibility and authority to adopt transportation control and emission reduction programs for indirect and area-wide emission sources.

The BAAQMD is the regional agency with jurisdiction over the nine-county region located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), county transportation agencies, cities and counties, and various non-governmental organizations also join in the efforts to improve air quality through a variety of programs. These programs include the adoption of regulations and policies, as well as implementation of extensive education and public outreach programs.

The management of air quality in the Air Basin is the responsibility of the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD is responsible for bringing and/or maintaining air quality in the Air Basin within Federal and State air quality standards. Specifically, the BAAQMD has the responsibility to monitor ambient air pollutant levels throughout the Air Basin and to develop and implement attainment strategies to ensure that future emissions will be within Federal and State standards.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-7 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

As the regulatory agency with the responsibility to manage air quality in the Bay Area, the BAAQMD is uniquely qualified to forecast the air quality effects and to assess the significance of the addition of new sources of air pollutant emissions within the Bay Area.

In December of 1999, the BAAQMD prepared its CEQA Guidelines – Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, as a guidance document to provide lead government agencies, consultants, and project proponents with uniform procedures for assessing air quality impacts and preparing the air quality sections of environmental documents for projects subject to CEQA. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines is an advisory document and local jurisdictions are not required to utilize the methodology outlined therein. This document describes the criteria that the BAAQMD uses when reviewing and commenting on the adequacy of environmental documents, such as this EIR. It recommends thresholds for use in determining whether projects would have significant adverse environmental impacts, identifies methodologies for predicting project emissions and impacts, and identifies measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality impacts. This section of the EIR was prepared following the recommendations of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.

Air Quality Plans, Policies and Regulations

Plans and Policies As required by the federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act, air basins or portions thereof have been classified as either “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the standards have been achieved. Nonattainment areas are also required to prepare air quality plans that include strategies for achieving attainment.

The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is in attainment of both the NAAQS and the CAAQS for

NO2, SO2, CO, and lead. The Bay Area Air Basin is nonattainment for ozone for both the

NAAQS and CAAQS. The Bay Area Air Basin is nonattainment of the CAAQS for PM10, but is in attainment of the NAAQS for PM10. Table 4.2-2 displays the current attainment status.

Air quality plans developed to meet federal requirements are referred to as SIPs. The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act require plans to be developed for areas designated as nonattainment (with the exception of areas designated as nonattainment for the state PM10 standard). Plans are also required under federal law for areas designated as “maintenance” for national standards. Such plans include strategies for attaining the standards. Currently, there are three plans for the Bay Area:

• Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard (ABAG, 1999) developed to meet federal ozone air quality planning requirements;

• Revised Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard (ABAG, 2001) responded to the US EPA’s partial disapproval of the 1999 Plan;

• On January 4, 2006, the BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. The Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy presents the progress that has been made over the past years in the Bay Area in reducing ozone levels, describes current conditions, and outlines a control

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-8 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

TABLE 4.2-2 ATTAINMENT STATUS OF THE BAY AREA FOR THE STATE AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Attainment Status

Pollutant Averaging Time State Standardsa National Standardsb

c Ozone, O3 8 Hour – Nonattainment 1 Hour Nonattainment – Carbon Monoxide, CO 8 Hour Attainment Attainment 1 Hour Attainment Attainment

Nitrogen Dioxide, NO2 Annual – Attainment 1 Hour Attainment –

Sulfur Dioxide, SO2 Annual – Attainment 24 Hour Attainment Attainment 3 Hour – Attainment 1 Hour Attainment –

Respirable Particulate Matter, Annual Nonattainmentc Attainment PM10

24 Hour Nonattainmentc Unclassified

d Fine Particulate Matter, PM2.5 Annual Nonattainment Attainment 24 Hour – Attainment Lead, Pb Quarter – Attainment Month Attainment –

a California standards for ozone, CO (except Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1-hour and 24-hour), NOx, and PM10 are values that are not to be exceeded. b National standards other than for ozone, particulates, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means are not to be exceeded more than once a year. c This standard became effective on May 17, 2006. d Currently, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) does not have sufficient monitoring data to determine attainment status.

SOURCE: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Ambient Air Quality Standards and Bay Area Attainment Status, http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm, 2006.

strategy to further reduce ozone precursors and ozone levels in the Bay Area. The control strategy describes a set of control measures to further reduce ozone precursor emissions in order to reduce ozone levels in the Bay Area and to reduce transport of pollution to downwind regions. The control strategy includes stationary source measures, mobile source measures, and transportation control measures (BAAQMD, 2006); and

• Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan (ABAG, 1994) developed to ensure continued attainment of the national CO standard.

On January 4, 2006, the Board of Directors of the BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. The Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy reviews the region's progress over the years in reducing ozone levels, describes current conditions, and charts a course for future actions to further reduce ozone levels in the Bay Area. The control strategy is a central element of the Bay

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-9 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. The control strategy outlines a set of control measures to further reduce ozone precursor emissions in order to reduce ozone levels in the Bay Area, to attain State standards, and to reduce transport of pollution to downwind regions. The control strategy includes stationary source measures, mobile source measures and transportation control measures.

Federal Regulations for Criteria Pollutants

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, “Standards of Performance of New Stationary Sources,” requires US EPA to establish federal emission standards for source categories which cause or contribute significantly to air pollution. These standards are intended to promote use of the best air pollution control technologies, taking into account the cost of such technology and any other non-air quality, health, and environmental impact and energy requirements. The US EPA has established New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for several source categories. Some New Source Performance Standards apply to the proposed facility (40 CFR 60). These include New Source Performance Standards for petroleum refinery equipment. The New Source Performance Standards program is implemented by the BAAQMD.

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations were first promulgated by the US EPA (40 CFR 52) to prevent air quality degradation in those areas where criteria air pollutant concentrations are below the ambient standards (i.e., attainment areas). Currently, the PSD regulations are implemented by the US EPA, which also administers PSD review for new sources that emit criteria pollutants in designated attainment areas. On a case by case basis, US EPA may delegate PSD authority to local air districts administer individual PSD applications. Authority for PSD permitting of the Rodeo Clean Fuels Expansion Project has been delegated by US EPA to the BAAQMD. Exceedance of a PSD trigger level requires a demonstration by modeling that the emissions would not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS at the point of maximum impact and would not cause an exceedance of a PSD increment.

Title V Federal Operating Permit (Title V) Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments requires all major sources and some minor sources of air pollution to obtain an operating permit. A Title V permit grants a source permission to operate. The permit includes all air pollution requirements that apply to the source, including emissions limits and monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements. It also requires that the source report its compliance status with respect to permit conditions to the permitting authority. Under Title V of the Clean Air Act, any source that emits or has the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of any criteria air pollutant is a major source and must obtain a Title V operating permit. Title V permits in the Bay Area are issued by the BAAQMD. The facility was issued a Title V Operating Permit (#A0016) on December 1, 2003, which was last revised on March 2, 2006.

In the Bay Area, Title V requirements are implemented by Regulation 2 Rule 6 of the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations. ConocoPhillips Refinery is subject to the Operating Permit requirements

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-10 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality of Title V of the federal Clean Air Act, and BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 6, Major Facility Review, because it is a major facility as defined by BAAQMD Regulation 2-6-212. It is a major facility because it has the “potential to emit,” more than 100 tons per year of a regulated air pollutant, as defined by BAAQMD Regulation 2-6-218. Major Facility Operating permits (Title V permits) must meet specifications contained in 40 CFR Part 70 as contained in BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 6.

Diesel Emissions In August 1998, the CARB identified particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines (diesel particulate matter or DPM) as Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). The CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles and the Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines and approved these documents on September 28, 2000. These documents propose to reduce diesel particulate emissions, with the goal to reduce emissions and the associated health risk by 75 percent in 2010 and by 85 percent in 2020, and to require the use of state-of-the-art catalyzed diesel particulate filters and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel.

In December 2000, the US EPA promulgated regulations requiring that the sulfur content in motor vehicle diesel fuel be reduced to less than 15 ppm by June 1, 2006. Control of DPM emissions focuses on two strategies: reducing the amount of sulfur in diesel fuel and developing filters for operating diesel engines to reduce the amount of particulate matter that is emitted. Secondly, the EPA finalized a comprehensive national emissions control program, the 2007 Highway Diesel program, which regulates highway heavy-duty vehicles and diesel fuel as a single system. Under the 2007 Highway Diesel program, the EPA established new emission standards that would significantly reduce PM and NOx from highway heavy-duty vehicles.

In May 2003, the US EPA proposed new emission standards for nonroad diesel engines and sulfur reductions in nonroad diesel fuel that would dramatically reduce emissions attributed to nonroad diesel engines. These standards would affect emissions from construction equipment, mining equipment, locomotives, and marine diesels. As these emission standards (applying solely to mobile equipment) have only been proposed at this time, their benefits were not accounted for in this analysis.

As proposed, the new engine standards for nonroad trucks would take effect in 2008. The US

EPA estimates that PM from nonroad diesel engines would be reduced 95 percent, NOx would be reduced 90 percent, and SOx would be virtually eliminated as an emission from this source. Sulfur in nonroad diesel fuel would be reduced 99 percent from existing levels. In June 2007, the interim cap of sulfur content for fuel for nonroad sources would be 500 ppm. In June 2010, sulfur would be limited to 15 ppm (ultra-low-sulfur fuel). The Tier 1 emission standards for nonroad diesel engines were set in 1994 and affect engines greater than 50 horsepower. The Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards were set in 1998 and affected engines less than and greater than 50 horsepower. The new standards would affect engines ranging from 3 to 3,000 horsepower. Again, the US EPA is proposing a “tiered” method of implementing the standard based on the engine capacity of the equipment.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-11 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

Current regulations apply emission standards to engines manufactured from 1987 through 2003 for heavy-duty diesel truck and bus engines. Applicable to the 1994 and following year standards, sulfur content in the certification fuel has been reduced to 500 ppm. In October 1997, the US EPA adopted new emission standards for 2004 (and later) heavy-duty diesel truck and bus engines. These standards reflect the provisions of the Statement of Principles signed in 1995 by the US EPA, CARB, and the manufacturers of heavy-duty diesel engines. The goal is to reduce

NOx emissions from highway heavy-duty engines to levels approximately 2 grams per brake- horsepower-hour (g/bhp·hr) beginning in 2004.1

BAAQMD Rules and Regulations The regional agency primarily responsible for developing air quality plans for Contra Costa County is the BAAQMD. BAAQMD is the agency with permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources in the Bay Area. BAAQMD exercises permit authority through its Rules and Regulations. Both federal and state ozone plans rely heavily upon stationary source control measures set forth in BAAQMD’s Rules and Regulations. In contrast to the ozone plans, the CO Maintenance Plan relies heavily on mobile source control measures.

New Source Review The New Source Review regulations apply to nonattainment pollutants and apply to all new and modified stationary sources, which are subject to the requirements of BAAQMD’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT). The New Source Review regulations also include PSD rules for attainment pollutants. The purpose of the regulations is to incorporate a “no net increase” program required by the Clean Air Act. The regulation is also designed to ensure that the emission sources will not cause or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of ambient air quality standards.

New Source Review applies to all new and modified sources requiring an Authority to Construct. The purpose of this rule is to provide for the review of new and modified sources and provide mechanisms, including the use of BACT, Best Available Control Technology for Toxics (TBACT) and emission offsets by which authorities to construct for such sources could be granted. This regulation is also designed to ensure that the emission sources will not cause or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of ambient air quality standards. Because the San

Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently a nonattainment area for state ozone and PM10 standards, some requirements under BAAQMD’s policy are more stringent than federal policy.

BACT is required for certain new sources with pollutant emissions exceeding threshold limits set by the BAAQMD for new or modified stationary sources. The BACT threshold is currently triggered if a source has the potential to emit 10 pounds or more per highest day of precursor organic compounds (POC), nonprecursor organic compounds (NPOC), NOx, SO2, PM10, or CO. BACT is required to be applied to any of the above pollutant emissions meeting the required criterion.

1 Further information on current regulations that apply to heavy-duty trucks and on-site nonroad equipment can be found at www.dieselnet.com/.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-12 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

The BAAQMD New Source Review regulation requires emission offsets for any new or modified source that produces a cumulative increase in emissions of NOx or POC at the ratios shown in Table 4.2-3.

TABLE 4.2-3 REQUIRED OFFSET RATIOS FOR BAAQMD’S NEW SOURCE REVIEW

Required Offset Ratio

Facility Emissions (tons per year) POC NOx

Greater than or equal to 10, 1.0 to 1.0 1.0 to 1.0 but less than 35 Greater than or equal to 35 1.15 to 1.0 1.15 to 1.0

SOURCE: Regulation 2 Rule 2, BAAQMD Rules and Regulations, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, May 2000, last updated December 2004.

For a facility such as ConocoPhillips with NOx and POC emissions exceeding 35 tons per year on a facility-wide basis, the BAAQMD New Source Review regulation requires emission offsets at a ratio of 1.15 to 1.0 for emissions from any new or modified source minus onsite contemporaneous emission reductions. Any planned major facility that would constitute a new or modified emissions source with a cumulative increase since April 5, 1991 of more than 1.0 ton 2 per year of PM10 or SO2, must provide offsets at either a 1.0 to 1.0 ratio or another ratio approved by the BAAQMD.

While there is no threshold for providing offsets for CO emissions, dispersion modeling requirements are specified for facilities with a cumulative increase of CO emissions in excess of 100 tons per year since the PSD baseline date of July 17, 1991. Modeling must show that the Proposed Project would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the state CO standards.

To offset new emissions for new resource review requirements from new Proposed Project facilities and equipment, and changes to existing facilities, ConocoPhillips proposes to use a combination of emission reduction credits (ERCs) currently on deposit with the BAAQMD in the Refinery’s bank, contemporaneous offsets, and purchased offsets. It should be noted that the County does not consider the banked ERCs to be eligible as creditable reductions due to being outside of the baseline period for the purposes of this CEQA analysis.

Other Applicable BAAQMD Regulations In addition to BACT, emissions offsets and major source review requirements previously discussed above, numerous other BAAQMD regulations apply to the construction and operation of the Proposed Project.

2 Per BAAQMD Rule 2-2-303.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-13 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

A summary of applicable regulations is presented in Table 4.2-4; details of the regulations are contained in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Rules and Regulations, Volumes 1 and 2.

BAAQMD Regulation 12, Rule 11 (adopted June 3, 2003) requires refineries to accurately monitor the flow and composition of vent gases sent to and combusted by a flare3. ConocoPhillips is also required to identify reasons for significant flaring events (greater than 500,000 standard cubic feet in a 24 hour period) and identify corrective actions to prevent recurrence.

In addition, the Regulation 12, Rule 12 (amended April 5, 2006), required ConocoPhillips to prepare and implement a Flare Minimization Plan on or before August 1, 2006. The Flare Minimization Plan addresses the following:

• Means now employed to minimize flaring during major maintenance activities and development of a procedure to encourage further reductions in flaring during these activities. • Document planned reductions to be undertaken to reduce flaring. • Evaluate past flaring events and consider the value of additional recovery, storage, and/or treatment of flare gases. • Document the means for ensuring that programs are in place to prevent recurrent failures.

Contra Costa County General Plan As part of the Conservation Element of the General Plan, Contra Costa County has adopted goals intended to improve air quality in the County. These goals and policies are summarized as follows:

• To meet Federal Air Quality Standards for all pollutants. • To continue to support federal, State and regional efforts to reduce air pollution in order to protect human and environmental health. • To restore air quality in the area to a more healthful level. • To reduce the percentage of Average Daily Traffic trips occurring at peak hours.

The Conservation Element also contains the following policies applicable to the Proposed Project.

• When there is a finding that a Proposed Project might significantly affect air quality, appropriate mitigation measures shall be imposed. • Proposed projects shall be reviewed for their potential to generate hazardous air pollutants.

The Proposed Project is consistent with these policies of the General Plan.

3 Monthly reports are submitted 30 days after the end of the month and include monitoring data for each flare subject to the Reg. 12-11 flare monitoring requirements (see http://www.baaqmd.gov/enf/flares/)

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-14 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

TABLE 4.2-4 BAAQMD RULES AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT

Regulation and Rule Title Description

2 - 1 Permits Applicability of CEQA 2 - 2 New Source Review BACT Requirements 2 – 4 Emissions Banking Offset Requirement, Precursor Organic Compounds, and Nitrogen Oxides 2-5 New Source Review of Toxic Air Provides for a review of air toxics for new and modified Contaminates sources 2 – 9 Intermediate Emission Reduction Credits Offset Requirement, Particulate Matter (TSP), PM10 and Sulfur Dioxide PSD Requirement Carbon Monoxide Modeling Requirements Non-Criteria Pollutant Analysis Denial PSD Air Quality Analysis Visibility, Soils and Vegetation Analysis 3 Fees Standards 4 Air Pollution Episode Plan Standards 6 Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions Standards 7 Odorous Substances Standards 8 – 2 Miscellaneous Operations Valves and Flanges 8 – 5 Storage of Organic Liquids Pumps and Compressors 8 – 18 Valves and Flanges at Petroleum Refinery Pressure Relief Valves Complexes 8 – 28 Pressure Relief Valves at Petroleum Limitations on Hydrogen Sulfide Refineries and Chemical Plants 9 – 1 Sulfur Dioxide Standards 9 – 2 Hydrogen Sulfide General Provisions 9 – 3 Nitrogen Oxides from Heat Transfer Petroleum Refineries Operations 9 - 10 Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide from Limits nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide emissions Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process from boilers, steam generators, and process heaters Heaters in Petroleum Refineries 9 - 11 Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide from Limits nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide emissions Electric Power Generating Steam Boilers from electric power generating steam boilers Petroleum Refineries Waste Water Systems 12 - 11 Flare Monitoring at Petroleum Refineries Monitoring and Records 12 - 12 Flares at Petroleum Refineries Administrative Requirements

SOURCE: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Rules and Regulations, Volumes 1 and 2.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-15 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

4.2.2.3 Existing Air Quality BAAQMD operates a regional monitoring network that measures the ambient concentrations of the six criteria pollutants. Existing and probable future general levels of air quality in the Proposed Project area can generally be inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted by BAAQMD at its monitoring stations. The major pollutants of concern in the San Francisco

Bay Area, ozone, PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO2, and SO2, are monitored at a number of locations. Within Contra Costa County, the BAAQMD operates or receives data from seven monitoring stations in the local area. The seven monitoring stations are as follows:

Monitoring Station Pollutant(s) Monitored

Bethel Island Ozone, PM10, CO, NO2, and SO2

Concord Ozone, PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO2, and SO2

Crockett Ozone, CO, PM2.5, NO2, and SO2

Pittsburg Ozone, PM10, CO, NO2, and SO2

Richmond SO2

San Pablo Ozone, PM10, CO, NO2, and SO2

Martinez SO2

Background ambient concentrations of pollutants are determined by pollutant emissions in a given area, and wind patterns and meteorological conditions for that area. As a result, background concentrations can vary among different locations within an area. However, areas located close together and exposed to similar wind conditions can be expected to have similar background pollutant concentrations. The closest and most representative monitoring station to the Proposed 4 Project site is San Pablo . Given that the San Pablo monitoring station does not sample for PM2.5, the nearest monitoring station with PM2.5 (Concord) was used. Table 4.2-5 shows a five-year (2000-2004) summary of maximum monitoring data collected at the most representative station, compared with CAAQS and NAAQS.

Sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) concentrations are also monitored at a number of stations at and around the Refinery. Table 4.2-6 summarizes these data from the East Refinery, Crockett, former Hillcrest School, and Tormey sites, for the years 2000 through 2005; the

Tormey site was added in the fall of 2004. The only measured values exceeding the H2S standard were recorded during October 31, 2004 at the East Refinery and Tormey sites. On October 31, 2004, at approximately 3:50 AM, a precautionary shelter-in-place was initiated after an inadvertent release caused odors outside the Refinery. See the detail in Section 4.8.2.3, Accident History.

4 In 2002 the San Pablo station was moved from El Portal to Rumrill Blvd. 2000-2002 data is taken from San Pablo- El Portal and 2003-2004 data is taken from San Pablo-Rumrill Blvd.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-16 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

TABLE 4.2-5 AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY (2000–2004) FOR THE PROJECT AREA

Monitoring Data by Year

Pollutant Standard 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Ozone, O3 Highest 1-Hour Average, ppm 0.076 0.086 0.071 0.091 0.105 Days over State Standard 0.090000 1 Days over National Standard 0.120000 0 Highest 8-Hour Average, ppm 0.067 0.075 0.053 0.068 0.069 Days over National Standard 0.080000 0 Carbon Monoxide, CO Highest 1-Hour Average, ppm 20 2.80 2.30 2.50 3.10 NA Days over State Standard 0 0 0 0 0 Highest 8-Hour Average, ppm 9.0 1.91 1.40 1.79 1.77 1.83 Days over State Standard 0 0 0 0 0

Nitrogen Oxides, NOx Highest 1-Hour Average, ppm 0.25 0.066 0.061 0.051 0.070 0.055 Days over State Standard 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Average, ppm 0.0530 0.014 0.014 NA 0.013 0.013

Sulfur Dioxide, SO2 Highest 1-Hour Average, ppm 0.25 0.027 0.013 0.015 0.019 NA Days over State Standard 0 0 0 0 0 Highest 24-Hour Average, ppm 0.04 0.008 0.005 0.004 0.006 0.005 Days over State Standard 0000 0 Days over National Standard 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Average, ppm 0.03 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002

Particulate Matter, PM10:

Highest 24-Hour Average, µg/m3 50 NA NA 47.1 49.9 62.0 Days over State Standard NA NA 0 0 1

Annual Average, µg/m3 20 NA NA NA 20.4 21.0

Particulate Matter, PM2.5:

Highest 24-Hour Average, µg/m3 65 52.6 68.2 76.7 49.7 73.7 Days over State Standard 0 1 1 0 1

Annual Average, µg/m3 12 10.9 10.2 12.7 9.7 NA

SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, Summaries of Air Quality Data, 2000–2004.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-17 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

TABLE 4.2-6 AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY (2000–2005) FROM FACILITY AREA

Monitoring Data by Year Pollutant Site Standard 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Sulfur Dioxide Highest 1-Hour Average, ppb East Refinery 250 110 45 180 55 65 35 Crockett 250 75 65 75 45 50 55 Hillcrest School 250 15 35 20 25 25 20 Highest 3-Hour Average, ppb East Refinery 500 73 30 93 35 33 18 Crockett 500 47 52 40 18 20 43 Hillcrest School 500 7 25 13 8 18 15 Highest 24-Hour Average, ppb East Refinery 40 20.4 6.25 21.3 6.88 6.04 2.92 Crockett 40 21.0 12.3 7.50 4.58 4.17 14.8 Hillcrest School 40 1.46 3.33 2.50 2.29 3.96 2.29 Annual Average, ppb East Refinery 30 0.216 0.126 0.414 0.143 0.155 0.127 Crockett 30 0.178 0.162 0.351 0.111 0.090 0.742 Hillcrest School 30 0.0305 0.0962 0.246 0.115 0.121 0.093 Hydrogen Sulfide Highest 1-Hour Average, ppb East Refinery 3011 4 18 9 42 5 Crockett 3043425 23 4 Hillcrest School 304239 7 4 Tormey –––– 46 12

NOTES: Generally, state standards are not to be exceeded and national standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year. Values in bold are in excess of applicable standard. ppb = parts per billion. Hydrogen sulfide exceedances occurred on October 31, 2004, after an inadvertent release. Live piping containing sour gas was accidentally opened to the atmosphere while blinding was being installed to ensure equipment isolation. Practices and procedures regarding blind installation have been revised and require that blind installation locations be marked with an identification tag.

SOURCE: ConocoPhillips, Ambient Monitoring Data for 2000–2005

ConocoPhillips Refinery – Existing Emissions Inventory A summary of the total criteria pollutant emissions resulting from existing operations at ConocoPhillips Refinery for 2005 is presented in Table 4.2-7, which also presents the estimated 2004 emissions in Contra Costa County and the Bay Area, and allows comparison of existing emission levels.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-18 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

TABLE 4.2-7 CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FOR THE EXISTING CONOCOPHILLIPS RODEO REFINERY

Refinery Refinery Percent of Bay Percent of Contra Emission Rates Emission Rates Area Emission Costa County Pollutant (tons per year)a (tons per day)a Ratesb Emission Ratesb

Reactive Organic Gases, ROG 283 0.78 0.20 1.16 Carbon Monoxide, CO 314 0.86 0.04 0.25

Oxides of Nitrogen, NOx 335 0.92 0.17 0.97

Oxides of Sulfur, SOx 424 1.16 2.15 3.93

Particulate Matter, PM10 126 0.35 0.16 1.06

a Based on 2005 data for ConocoPhillips b Based on 2005 data for the Bay Area and Contra Costa County

SOURCES: California Air Resources Board. California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm, 2006. and BAAQMD estimate of emissions from ConocoPhillips Refinery for 2005, which was obtained from the June 28, 2006 invoice for Permit to Operate fees.

4.2.2.4 Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are pollutants that are associated with acute, chronic, or carcinogenic effects but for which no ambient air quality standard has been established or, in the case of carcinogens, is appropriate. TAC impacts are evaluated by determining if a particular chemical poses a significant risk to human health and, if so, under what circumstances. The impacts of TAC emissions are evaluated separately in Section 4.7, Public Health.

4.2.2.5 Odors While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and the BAAQMD. The occurrence and severity of odor problems depends on numerous factors, including the nature, frequency and intensity of the source, wind speed and direction, and the sensitivity of the receptor(s). Substances present in refinery air emissions, such as H2S, SO2, methyl mercaptan, other total reduced sulfur compounds, benzene compounds, naphthalene, and toluene, among others, are known to cause unpleasant odors.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 7 places general limitations on odorous substances, and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds such as mercaptans and phenolic compounds. The regulation applies when and if the BAAQMD receives validated odor complaints from 10 or more complainants in a 90-day period. During public presentations and through community mailers the Refinery has encouraged local community members to utilize the community information line to report any items of interest or nuisance that may or may not originate from the Refinery. During the years 2000 through 2004, totals of 78, 35, 48, 33, and 27 odor complaints, respectively, were received by BAAQMD related to ConocoPhillips Refinery.

In addition, BAAQMD Regulation 9, Rule 2 limits H2S emissions during a 24-hour period to quantities that do not result in ground-level concentrations greater than 83 µg/m3 (on a dry

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-19 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality volumetric basis) for a three-minute average, or 42 µg/m3 (30 ppb) for a 60-minute average. The state has also established air quality standards to be used by industry as guidelines. Between 2000 and 2005, the maximum one-hour concentrations (exceeding the standard) of H2S measured near the Refinery were 35 and 42 ppb (at the East Refinery station on October 31, 2004 at 6 and 7 am) and 46 ppb (at the Tormey station on October 31, 2004 at 5 am) due to an inadvertent release as live piping containing sour flare gas was accidentally opened to the atmosphere.

4.2.2.6 Sensitive Receptors For the purposes of air quality, public health and safety, and noise analyses, sensitive receptors are generally defined as land uses with population concentrations that would be particularly susceptible to disturbance from dust, noise, vibration, air pollutant concentrations, or other disruptions associated with project construction and/or operation. They generally include schools, residences, day care centers, libraries, hospitals, residential care centers, parks, and churches. Some receptors are considered more sensitive than others to air pollutants. The reasons for greater than average sensitivity include pre-existing health problems, proximity to emissions sources, or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Schools, hospitals and convalescent homes are considered to be relatively sensitive to poor air quality because children, elderly people and the infirmed are more susceptible to respiratory distress and other air quality-related health problems than is the general public. Residential areas are considered sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, with associated greater exposure to ambient air quality. Recreational uses are also considered sensitive due to the greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high demand on the human respiratory system. The land uses surrounding the facility are further described in Section 4.10, Land Use, Plans and Policies.

Bayo Vista contains the nearest sensitive receptors to the active area of the Refinery (e.g., schools, day care centers, libraries). The closest such sensitive receptor is a day care center, located approximately 2,000 feet south of the site. The Hillcrest School in Bayo Vista, which overlooks the Refinery site, was closed and students relocated outside the immediate vicinity of the Refinery as a result of a bond issue passage in elections held early in 2002. The closest residences in the Bayo Vista neighborhood to the south are located approximately 2,100 feet away from the Hydrocracker expansion unit and approximately 3,000 feet from the proposed hydrogen plant and sulfur recovery units.

4.2.3 Significance Criteria, Methodology and Discussion of No Impacts

Significance Criteria According to the checklist of potential environmental impacts at Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code. Reg. Div. 6, Appendix G, a project would have a significant effect on air quality if it would:

• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-20 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment pollutant (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air pollutants is considered in Section 4.7, Public Health. The analysis concludes that public exposure to toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions from the Proposed Project would result in an increase in health risks, but because the magnitudes of both the non-cancer and cancer-related risks would fall below the identified significance criteria values, the increases in health risks from the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

For project-level impact analysis, BAAQMD provides various thresholds and tests of significance that can be used to determine whether a project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the air quality plan, violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Guidelines established quantitative thresholds of significance for emissions, including:

• Total emissions of ROG, NOx, and PM10 from project operations exceed 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year. • Excessive localized CO concentrations due to: 1) motor vehicle emissions of CO that exceed 550 lbs/day; 2) project traffic that impact intersections or roadway links at Level of Service (LOS) D, E, or F or that cause LOS to decline to D, E, or F; or 3) project traffic that increases traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more (unless the traffic volume is less than 100 vehicles per hour). An increase of 550 pounds per day would be considered significant if it leads to a possible local violation of the CO standards i.e., if it creates a “hot spot” (BAAQMD, 1999).

According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts should be considered significant if the project’s impact individually would be significant (i.e., exceeds the BAAQMD’s quantitative thresholds). For a project that would not result in a significant impact individually, the project’s contribution to any cumulative impact would be considered less than significant if the project is consistent with the local general plan and the local general plan is consistent with the applicable regional air quality plan. In this case, the applicable regional air quality plan would be the 2005 Ozone Strategy.

The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines identifies screening distances from various odor sources, that if the odor source is within the stated distance, a more detailed analysis should be conducted for the proposed project. The stated distance for petroleum refineries is two miles (BAAQMD, 1999). Because the nearest receptor to the Proposed Project site is approximately 2,000 feet, a detailed odor analysis has been conducted. An exceedance of the standards in the applicable BAAQMD

Rules and Regulations would be considered to constitute a significant impact. For analysis of H2S

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-21 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality emissions, per BAAQMD Regulation 9, Rule 2, a 60-minute average of 30 μg/m3 would be considered the significance threshold.

Analysis Methodology The analysis in this section includes evaluation of both construction and operational impacts of the Proposed Project and is based on the Application for Authority to Construct and Air Emissions Calculations for the Proposed Project5. The County’s consultant has peer-reviewed these documents and concurs with the assumptions, methodology, and calculations used in the estimation of Proposed Project emissions. This EIR describes the methods and data used to calculate emissions. The implementation of the Proposed Project would lead to a change in emissions from the stationary sources as well as from mobile sources. Emission changes were estimated for all sources affected by the Proposed Project, including stationary and mobile sources. The detailed emission calculations for on-site stationary sources were submitted to the BAAQMD with the applications for the Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate, dated May 2006 with subsequent supplements.

Emissions Baseline In order to determine an impact, the emissions resulting from the Proposed Project are compared to a baseline. Under CEQA, the project baseline is normally defined as the physical conditions of the environment as it exists at the time of publication of the Notice of Preparation of the Proposed Project EIR. In the case of air emissions, typically a one-year average based on the previous year’s operation is used. The new ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) processing unit began operation in early 2005. Table 4.2-8 presents the estimated facility-wide baseline emissions for 2005, which best represents existing Refinery emissions that include new ULSD operations. This emissions data is the 2005 emissions estimate for the Refinery that was prepared by the BAAQMD for the purposes of invoicing Permit to Operate fees.

TABLE 4.2-8 ESTIMATED BASELINE EMISSIONS (average emissions, tons per year at the ConocoPhillips Refinery)

NOx SO2 PM10 ROG CO

335 424 126 283 314

SOURCE: BAAQMD estimate of emissions from ConocoPhillips Refinery for 2005, which was obtained from the June 28, 2006 invoice for Permit to Operate fees.

5 This EIR examines the overall effects of all Proposed Project components, including the proposed Hydrogen Plant. However, since ConocoPhillips would not own or operate the Hydrogen Plant, separate air permit applications and separate BAAQMD permits would be involved.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-22 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

Discussion of No Impacts There would be a potential for impacts to occur under each of the significance criteria stated above. These criteria are grouped and discussed generally under three broad impact statements, Impact 4.2-1 through 4.2-3, in Sections 4.2.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and Impact 4.2-4 in Section 4.2.5, Cumulative Impacts.

4.2.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Project Construction Impacts

Impact 4.2-1: Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including suspended and respirable particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions, which would contribute to existing air quality violations. This would be a potentially significant impact that would be mitigated to a less- than-significant level.

The new hydrocracking equipment would be constructed on an empty plot space adjacent to the existing hydrocracker. A new Sulfur Recovery Unit would be constructed on the east side of the Refinery, adjacent and south of the existing units. The new Hydrogen Plant would be constructed on existing plot space of former Unit 210. Excess soil generated from these activities would be reused or stored on site. Other materials, such as asphalt and concrete, would be transported off site for recycling or disposal at appropriately permitted disposal sites. Emission levels for construction activities would vary depending on the number and type of equipment, duration of use, operation schedules, and the number of construction workers. Some aspects of the construction plan may change slightly as the plan is finalized.

Construction-related emissions would be relatively short term, within the 18–21-month construction interval, but could still cause adverse effects on the local air quality. Proposed

Project construction could generate substantial amounts of dust (including PM10 and PM2.5) primarily from “fugitive” sources (i.e., emissions released through means other than through a stack or tailpipe) and lesser amounts of other criteria air pollutants primarily from operation of heavy equipment construction machinery (primarily diesel operated) and construction worker automobile trips (primarily gasoline operated).

The Proposed Project’s construction workforce is expected to reach between 480 and 834 workers at its peak. Materials would be delivered by truck. It is estimated that there would be 20 to 40 truck deliveries per day during the peak construction period, which is anticipated to last approximately 4 to 6 months. It is estimated that the Proposed Project would result in a total of approximately 1,600 one-way truck and auto trips during the peak period of construction activities.

Construction-related dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. In the absence of mitigation, construction activities may result in significant quantities of dust, and as a result, local visibility and PM10 concentrations may be adversely affected on a temporary and intermittent basis during the

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-23 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality construction period. The BAAQMD’s approach to analyses of construction impacts is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. The BAAQMD considers any project’s construction-related impacts to be less than significant if the required dust-control measures are implemented. Without these measures, the impact would generally be considered to be significant.

Criteria pollutant emissions of ROG and NOx from these emission sources would incrementally add to the regional atmospheric loading of ozone precursors during Proposed Project construction. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recognize that construction equipment emits ozone precursors, but indicate that such emissions are included in the emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans. Therefore construction emissions consistent with emission inventory estimates are not expected to impede attainment or maintenance of ozone standards in the Bay Area (BAAQMD, 1999).

Construction-related emissions are generally short-term in duration. In the BAAQMD, PM10 is the pollutant of greatest concern with respect to construction activities (BAAQMD, 1999). The

BAAQMD has identified a set of feasible PM10 control measures for construction activities. ConocoPhillips shall implement the basic control measures identified by the BAAQMD, plus the listed enhanced control measures (if necessary). The BAAQMD considers that the basic control measures (based on the size of this Proposed Project) would reduce the emissions from construction activities to a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a: During construction, ConocoPhillips shall require its construction contractors to implement the following dust control procedures to maintain Proposed Project construction-related impacts at acceptable levels.

Construction contractors shall implement the following dust abatement program to reduce the contribution of Proposed Project construction to local PM10 concentrations. Elements of this program (in compliance with BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines) shall include the following:

• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.

The following enhanced control measures shall be implemented on construction sites greater than four acres in size:

• Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-24 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

• Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas. • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. • Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time.

Mitigation Measure 4.2-1b: To mitigate equipment exhaust emissions, ConocoPhillips shall require its construction contractors to comply with the following requirements:

• Construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. • Best management construction practices shall be used to avoid (or limit) unnecessary emissions (e.g., trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues would turn their engines off when not in use). • Minimize the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to three minutes. • Use (where feasible) alternative fueled equipment (such as ULSD, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), biodiesel, water emulsion fuel, and electric). Provide the County with documentation that a good faith effort to use alternative-fueled equipment was conducted if it is determined that its use is not feasible. • Use diesel trucks which are post-1996. • Use add-on control devices (where feasible) such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters. • Encourage construction worker commuters to carpool or employ other means to reduce trip generation. • Allow a substantial portion of the construction workforce to avoid the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods. • Use on-site power when feasible to reduce reliance on portable generators.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-25 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

Project Operation Impacts

Prevention of Significant Deterioration The ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery is a major source under US EPA Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Regulations. In order to determine PSD applicability to the Proposed Project, an accounting of emission increases was compared against the PSD major modification emissions thresholds for each criteria pollutant. Emissions from projected increased heater and storage tank utilization at the Rodeo Refinery that would result after implementing the Proposed Project are included as cumulative net emissions, consistent with PSD protocol. Table 4.2-9 summarizes these emissions and compares the total for each criteria pollutant to the PSD significance levels.

This comparison shows that the significance levels are exceeded for NOx and PM10 emissions.

TABLE 4.2-9 CFEP PSD APPLICABILITY

Pollutant NOx CO SO2 VOC PM10

Project Net Emissions Increase 46.8 61.4 48.0 33.6 21.7 (tons per year) PSD Threshold 40 100 40 40 15 (tons per year) Exceeds PSD Threshold? Yes No Yes No Yes Cumulative Net Emissions Increase 42.9 NA 15.7 -12.6 23.8 (tons per year) PSD Threshold 40 100 40 40 15 (tons per year) Exceeds PSD Threshold? Yes No No No Yes

NOTE: Cargo carriers (i.e., emissions from ships and trains) are not counted when addressing PSD applicability.

SOURCE: ConocoPhillips, 2006 (revised October 18).

In accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 2-2-304, ConocoPhillips must consider not only the Proposed Project increases, but also the cumulative increases and decreases in emissions at the Rodeo Refinery since the PSD Baseline date. Because ConocoPhillips also owns and operates a Carbon Plant (Plant #22), which is contiguous to the Refinery property, the Carbon Plant can also be considered in this applicability analysis. Table 4.2-9 shows the cumulative emissions increases for the Refinery and the Carbon Plant, since the PSD Baseline date, including proposed reductions in Carbon Plant SO2 emissions that would result in a cumulative total below 40 tons per year for SO2 emissions. Thus, a PSD analysis for SO2 emission increases would not be required in the Proposed Project’s PSD permit. ConocoPhillips has submitted a PSD permit application addressing NOx and PM10 emission increases.

The air impacts, as determined by the County, are discussed below.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-26 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

Impact 4.2-2: Operational activities associated with the implementation of the Proposed Project would increase air pollutant emissions, contributing to existing air quality violations. Current estimates show that the total net new Proposed Project emissions of NOx, SO2, VOC, and PM10 would not exceed the BAAQMD emissions significance criteria with implementation of mitigation measures. This would be a potentially significant impact that would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

The Proposed Project would add new facilities and modify existing facilities to produce additional clean fuels. The Proposed Project would include increasing the permitted capacity of the Unit 240 Unicracker (S-307) hydrocracking process, the Unit 215 DIB Deisobutanizer (S-432), the Unit 244 Catalytic Reformer (S-308), and construction of a new Sulfur Recovery Unit (Unit 235). The Proposed Project would also include a new Hydrogen Plant to produce additional hydrogen to be used in the production of additional clean fuels. The Hydrogen Plant would be constructed and operated by a third party on a designated site within the Refinery. A complete description of the existing operations and the Proposed Project are contained in the Project Description and summarized below.

Proposed Unicracker Unit HGO Utilization Modifications The existing Unicracker (Unit 240) hydrocracking process would be modified to process an additional 23,000 bbl/day of HGO that would be refined into low-sulfur products and generate additional load to the Sulfur Plant. Throughput capacity would be increased from 42,000 to 65,000 bbl/day by adding a High-Pressure Reactor Train (HPRT) (Unit 246) capable of converting a variety of HGO feeds into high-quality diesel and gasoline. The HPRT would consist of the following new equipment:

• HGO Feed Heater: A new 85-million British thermal units per hour (Btu/hr) feed heater consisting of two separate fire boxes (B-801 A and B-801 B) joined by a common convection section would be fired with low-sulfur Refinery gas and equipped with low NOx burners and a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system to minimize emissions. This heater would be fired on refinery fuel gas (RFG) with an average higher heating value of 1,340 Btu per cubic foot. RFG would be treated to reduce the total reduced sulfur content to 45 parts per million by volume (ppmv) on an annual average basis. Total reduced sulfur is defined in the Refinery’s current Major Facility Review SO2 Bubble Condition No. 1694 as H2S, methyl mercaptan, methyl sulfide, and dimethyl disulfide. Total sulfur content in the RFG would be approximately 100 ppmv on an annual average basis. Natural gas may be used as a backup or supplemental fuel. This heater would be equipped with low-NOx burners and a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system to minimize NOx emissions to 7 ppmv-dry basis (ppmvd) at 3 percent oxygen (O2), 3-hour average. This is BACT for a refinery process heater of this size. Good combustion practices would ensure that CO and POC emissions are minimized. CO emissions would not exceed 28 ppmvd at 3 percent oxygen. Using treated refinery fuel gas and/or natural gas would minimize PM10 emissions.

• HGO Treating and Cracking Reactors: These reactors would convert the HGO to gasoline and diesel using a catalyst under high-pressure conditions with added hydrogen.

• HGO Product Stripper and Vacuum Flasher: These vessels would remove light ends and separate diesel product from the recycled unconverted oil stream.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-27 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

In addition to this primary equipment, process piping, pumps, heat exchangers, separator vessels, and tie-ins to existing process equipment would be installed. The proposed new equipment would be constructed on a roughly 250- by 200-foot site adjacent to the existing Unicracker process unit, which would be constructed on the existing plot space of former Unit 210.

Unit 240 B-1 Boiler The proposed new Hydrogen Plant (see below) to be constructed as part of the Proposed Project would incorporate energy conservation measures that would allow it to produce up to 240,000 lbs/hr of high pressure steam from recovery of waste heat. This would enable the Refinery to shutdown the Unit 240 B-1 boiler (S-8). The average boiler operation for the last 3 years was 115.73 million Btu/hour. The boiler operated essentially 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.

Proposed Sulfur Plant Modifications The Refinery’s existing Sulfur Recovery Plant has three parallel Sulfur Recovery Units (Units 234, 236, and 238), that are each equipped with a Claus Sulfur Recovery Unit and an associated Beavon Stretford Tail Gas Treating Unit. The SRUs have three main components: the feed system, the Claus Plant, and the TGTUs. As currently configured, the sulfur production capacities of these units are 70, 86, and 115 long tons6 per day, respectively.

The proposed Unicracker modifications would allow processing of HGO into low-sulfur gasoline and diesel products that would generate additional load to the Sulfur Recovery Plant. To achieve the proposed increased capacity, a new Sulfur Recovery Unit would be constructed with additional capacity of 200 long tons/day. Total Sulfur Recovery Plant capacity would increase by approximately 74 percent (to 471 long tons/day from 271 long tons/day). No changes to the existing capacity of Sulfur Recovery Units 234, 236 or 238 are proposed. Thus, sulfur production capacity would increase by an additional 200 long tons/day.

Proposed Modifications/Alterations to Other Process Units and Equipment The Proposed Project has been designed to fit within the throughput limitations of upstream and downstream process units to the extent possible. However, modifications would be made to the Unit 215 DIB Deisobutanizer (S-432) and the Unit 244 Reformer (S-308). Unit 76 Product Blending Unit (S-318) would be altered with hydraulic changes, but no capacity increase.

Organic Liquid Storage Tanks Some existing tanks would experience service changes resulting from increases in processing. Increases in gasoline production would result in an increase in utilization at existing tanks used to store these materials. Gas oil and diesel tanks are exempt from permit requirements based on the low vapor pressures of these products.

6 Long ton – one long ton is 2,240 pounds or approximately 1,016 kilograms.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-28 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

Tank 101 would be switched from diesel service to store gasoline material with a True Vapor Pressure (TVP) of 10 pounds per square inch (psia), absolute, and throughput of 7,446,000 bbl/yr. Tanks 168 (S-123) and 169 (S-124) would require permit condition changes. The annual throughput of these tanks would not change, but they would be permitted by BAAQMD to increase the TVP of the product stored. These actions would result in emission increases.

Amine storage tanks would be constructed at the Sulfur Plant. These storage tanks are exempt from permit requirements in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 2-1-123.3.2. Therefore, emissions from these tanks are not considered further in this evaluation.

Associated Auxiliary Equipment Additions or Changes Additional piping would be needed outside the boundary limits of the various process units. This additional piping would consist of new lines or tie-ins to existing lines outside the boundary limit of the process units. These include new rundown lines needed to send products to storage and interconnecting lines between process units. Relief lines or blowdown tie-ins outside the process units would also be needed to bring individual plant relief loads to the existing relief system.

Butane Rail Loading Facility A new butane rail loading facility would be constructed or an existing rail loading structure would be modified for butane loading in railcars. The facility would include new piping, valves, connections, access structures, and loading arms. The existing rail spur may also be modified. The proposed butane rail loading facility is exempt from permit requirements in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 2-1-123.3.1, therefore, the butane rail loading facility emissions are not considered further in this evaluation.

Fugitive Components New process equipment associated with the Proposed Project would emit fugitive precursor organic compound (POC) emissions from various components including valves, flanges, connectors, pumps, and compressors. The proposed upgrades to the Unit 240 Unicracker would include new sources of fugitive POC emissions; however, there would be no more than a negligible change in fugitive POC emissions from other existing units. Replacement equipment at existing units would be expected to have approximately the same number of fugitive components. Additionally, piping changes within and between existing units would not be expected to significantly affect the fugitive component count. The number of new fugitive components for the Proposed Project is estimated based on pre-design drawing hand-count, comparison to existing units, ConocoPhillips experience in construction of similar units, and other estimation techniques.

Sulfur Plant The new SRU (Unit 235) would include a new Claus Plant, TGTU Amine System, thermal incinerator, sulfur pit, common Sulfur Degassing System, Sulfur Storage Tank, and Sulfur Loading Rack. The Beavon Stretford process would not be used in the new SRU. The Stretford process, which is used in the existing SRUs, is maintenance intensive and prone to mechanical

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-29 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality reliability problems. Therefore, a more reliable amine technology would be used in the new Unit 235. The new SRU would increase the sulfur removal capacity to process and recover the additional sulfur (an increase in capacity of 200 long tons/day) from the Unicracker (Unit 240) expansion.

The small amount of H2S remaining in the tail gas from Unit 235 TGTU after sulfur recovery would be converted to SO2 at the new thermal incinerator. The new Unit 235 sulfur pit vent would be rerouted back to the new Claus reaction furnace. The increase in SO2 emissions due to the new SRU is estimated to be 36.7 tons/year. This is based on a BACT level concentration of

50 ppmv SO2 at the exhaust of the new incinerator. The New Unit 235 SRU would require a new thermal incinerator rated at 18 million Btu/hr of heat input. This incinerator would be fired on natural gas with an average higher heating value of 1,020 Btu per cubic foot. This heater would be equipped with low-NOx burners to minimize NOx emissions to a BACT level of 42.2 ppmv- dry basis (ppmvd) at 7 percent oxygen (O2), 1-hour average.

PM10 and POC emission factors were obtained from the U.S. EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), Section 1.4 on Natural Gas Combustion. Good combustion practices would ensure that carbon monoxide (CO) and POC emissions are minimized. CO emissions would be less than a BACT level of 57.1 ppmvd at 7 percent O2, 1-hour average. Using natural gas would minimize PM10 emissions.

Existing Tanks with Throughput Changes The Proposed Project would result in increased utilization of some tanks that do not have enforceable limits. These are product tanks that generally store gasoline or diesel. In accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 2-1-234.3 (for sources without enforceable limits), ConocoPhillips would provide offsets for emission increases from these sources and propose New Source Review permit limits. Utilization of Tank 204 would increase to 5,781,600 bbl/year and Tank 205 would increase to 2,740,000 bbl/yr. Tank 294 (S-182) would also increase throughput by 175 gallons per minute of sour water, but is also controlled by vapor recovery so there would be no increase in emissions. For other tanks, three years of actual throughput data was averaged to create the annual baseline.

Permit Condition Changes for Tanks 101, 168, and 169 Tank 101 (S-98) is currently exempt from permitting per BAAQMD Regulation 2-1-123.3.2 and 2-1-123.3.3. ConocoPhillips proposes to change the tank product, and consequently remove this exemption from the tank. It is proposed to store a material with a TVP of 10 and a tank throughput of 7,446,000 bbls/yr. The increase in POC emissions from this change would be 6.18 tons/yr.

Tanks 168 (S-123) and 169 (S-124) are currently subject to permit condition 22478, which limits operations. Tank 168 (S-123) is subject to permit condition 22478 part 1, which limits the TVP to 1.5 psia. ConocoPhillips proposes a higher TVP of 3.0 for product and requests that the ROG emission limit for Tank 169 (S-124) be removed to simplify compliance. The increase in POC

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-30 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality emissions from the change in TVP would be 993 lbs/yr. No throughput increase is proposed for this tank from the current 3,000,000 bbls/yr allowed in permit condition 22478 Part 5.

Tank 169 (S-124) is subject to permit condition 22478 part 2, which limits total POC emissions to 6,815 lbs on a consecutive 12-month basis. ConocoPhillips proposes a higher TVP of 11 psia for product and requests that the emission limit be removed to simplify compliance. The POC emissions would increase slightly as a result of this permit condition modification. This increase, calculated to be 1.4 tons per year, would be offset. No tank throughput increase is proposed.

Truck and Auto Trips Emissions from trucks and autos would result from the following types of activities: routine product transport and delivery of materials to the site by truck; and personnel commuting. Calculation of the emissions is based on the number of trips and distance of travel, coupled with accepted emission factors. The average number of heavy-duty truck round trips would increase by 9.2 trips/day. ConocoPhillips has estimated a round-trip distance of 60 miles. Truck trip emissions from diesel fuel combustion were calculated using EMFAC2002 emission factors and this estimated round-trip mileage. EMFAC2002 is the latest in a series of on-road emissions models produced by CARB. The Proposed Project would create no more than 22 daily commuter round trips. Commuter vehicle emissions were also calculated using EMFAC2002 and a round- trip travel distance of 60 miles.

The total estimated vehicle CO emissions are 15 pounds per day7, compared to a significance criterion of 550 lbs/day. The total number of vehicle round trips per day is estimated at 22, compared to a significance criterion of 100 trips per day. Proposed Project operation phase traffic volumes would be minimal, as discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation and Traffic. The Proposed Project would have negligible impact on intersections or roadway links at Level of Service (LOS) D, E, or F or cause LOS to decline to D, E, or F and would not increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10 percent. Therefore, the localized impacts of motor vehicle CO emissions associated with the Proposed Project are not considered significant and further analysis is not required.

Marine Sources The changes in the import and export of products resulting from the Proposed Project would cause a net annual decrease of marine vessel and tugboat trips. Product can be shipped in barges or marine vessels. Compartments within the barges and vessels allow flexibility in the quantity and type of product. The pre-Proposed Project number of barges and vessels for each product was calculated based on post-ULSD actual historical data from April 1 through December 2005. To calculate the number of trips needed after implementation of the Proposed Project, the change in product export quantity was considered and the size of marine vessel and barge loads were projected to accommodate these changes. Barge-related tugboat trips would decrease by 139 and tugboats escorting marine vessels would increase by 18 trips, therefore, the cumulative decrease would be 121 trips.

7 ConocoPhillips, revised vehicle exhaust emission estimates, November 2006.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-31 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

Barges do not have engines and are pushed or pulled by tugboats. It was assumed that one tugboat would escort each barge and one additional tugboat would assist in docking and undocking the barge. For marine vessels it was assumed that one tug would escort the vessel and two additional tugs would assist in docking and undocking the vessel.

The changes in product shipping result in an overall decrease of pollutants from marine diesel engines (marine vessels and tugs). This reduction is primarily because gas oil that is currently shipped would be processed on site rather than exported. Emission factors for tugboats and marine freighters were obtained from the US EPA document Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data (US EPA, 2000). Emissions were calculated using these factors together with information provided by the Refinery on the deadweight of the marine freighters and number of trips associated with the Proposed Project. Existing maximum daily emissions associated with marine transport sources would not change as a result of the Proposed Project.

Rail Traffic There would be an increase of butane production, a portion of which may be exported by up to three railcars per day. ConocoPhillips fills butane railcars and leaves them on the Refinery rail spur until the contracted rail carrier provides a locomotive to remove them from the site for shipping. Typically, five to eight railcars would be moved off site at a time.

Emissions were calculated using US EPA 1997 Emission Factors for Locomotives and Booz, Allen & Hamilton 1991 Locomotive Emission Study for the CARB. Based on information provided by Union Pacific Railroad, fuel usage was calculated based on the gross tonnage of three railcars traveling an average distance within the County. Since the destination of the locomotive varies everyday the mileage was averaged based on the typical trips the locomotive takes to and from the Refinery. The average mileage was calculated to be 42 miles.

Hydrogen Plant The proposed Hydrogen Plant would supply hydrogen to the expanded hydrocracker, Unit 240. The Hydrogen Plant’s proposed capacity is 120 million standard cubic feet per day hydrogen production. The new Hydrogen Plant would be capable of handling several different feeds, including gaseous feeds of natural gas and refinery fuel gas (RFG), and liquid feeds of butane and pentanes. It would be located within the perimeter of the Refinery on land that has already been developed. The Plant would be located on the east side of San Pablo Avenue west of the Refinery’s coking Unit 200. The Hydrogen Plant would be owned and operated by a third party. The components of the Hydrogen Plant are discussed below.

SMR Furnace The Hydrogen Plant would use Steam Methane Reforming (SMR), the most widely used technology for producing hydrogen from hydrocarbon (C1-C5) feedstocks. The new SMR furnace would be rated at 975 million Btu/hr of heat input for normal operations, and up to 1,072 million Btu/hr for short-term conditions. The Hydrogen Plant would be equipped with a

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-32 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality pressure swing adsorption unit to ensure high-purity hydrogen is produced. The offgas from the PSA unit would serve as the primary fuel source for the SMR furnace (approximately 85% of total furnace fuel supply; the percentage would vary depending on operating conditions). The SMR furnace would also burn refinery fuel gas supplied by ConocoPhillips and/or natural gas. Due to the metallurgy of the air preheat section, the treated refinery fuel gas would be blended with natural gas to reduce the total sulfur content to below 35 ppmv. The PSA offgas is not treated for sulfur removal, since it is generated by the process, and all sulfur is removed from the process feed in the pretreatment section of the SMR.

The SMR furnace would be equipped with low-NOx burners and a selective catalytic reduction system to meet BACT standards. NOx emissions would not exceed 5 ppmv-dry (ppmvd) at

3 percent O2. Good combustion practices would ensure that CO and POC emissions are minimized. CO emissions would not exceed 10 ppmvd at 3 percent O2. Using treated refinery fuel gas and/or natural gas would minimize PM10 emissions.

Hydrogen Plant Deaereator Vent Process condensate would be collected during cooling of syngas after shift conversion. The process condensate would be treated and recycled for use as boiler feed water. During the reforming process, the condensate would absorb some byproducts from the reforming and shift reaction, chiefly ammonia and methanol. Most of the byproducts would be stripped in the high- pressure condensate stripper and recycled within the SMR. A small amount of ammonia and methanol would remain in the stripped condensate, which would be recycled to the boiler. A small amount of boiler steam would be sent to the deaerator, which would result in minute quantities of methanol and ammonia being vented to the atmosphere.

Hydrogen/Syngas Flare The Hydrogen Plant would have a flare to combust hydrogen and syngases during startup, shutdown, customer constraint periods, maintenance events, and process upsets. The gases combusted in the Hydrogen Plant flare would be products of the SMR reaction, either syngas produced by the reformer or hydrogen product. Any relief valve venting of SMR feed streams (hydrocarbon streams, such as natural gas, refinery gas, butane or pentane) would be routed to the Refinery flare system. The Hydrogen Plant flare would also be used to control emissions from the ammonia tank pressure relief valve. The Hydrogen Plant would have no routine flaring emissions.

A flare pilot would be maintained, which would be fired by natural gas. The flare pilot would emit low amounts of NOx and CO. Emissions of SO2 from the pilot gas are estimated based upon natural gas content of 10 ppmv sulfur in natural gas. There would be no sulfur present in the hydrogen or syngas products.

Cooling Tower The cooling water tower would have capacity to circulate 5.3 million gallon per day (3,700 gallons per minute). The cooling water tower would be a double-cell conventional induced draft unit. High-efficiency drift eliminators (0.005% drift) are proposed to control particulate matter emissions.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-33 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

The cooling tower would be an exempt source per BAAQMD Rule 2-1-128.4 since the estimated emissions of criteria pollutants are less than 5 tons per year. The primary emissions from cooling towers consist of PM10 from water droplet drift and evaporation, and POC from organic compounds that leak into the cooling water from process fluids. The proposed cooling tower would cool lube oil, the steam generator, the product compressor, and the process gas after it passed through shift converter, so the cooling water would contain very little POC.

Aqueous Ammonia Tank The SMR furnace would use an SCR process that utilizes 19% aqueous ammonia. Aqueous ammonia would be stored in a new pressure vessel with a nitrogen blanket. Ammonia storage tanks are exempt per BAAMQD Rule 2-1-123.2 because the tanks would contain an aqueous solution with less than 1 percent organic matter.

Emissions Summary

Total emissions of ROG, SO2, NOx, CO, and PM10 from Proposed Project operations (daily and annual) and the significance thresholds established by the BAAQMD are presented in Tables 4.2-10 and 4.2-11. These summaries include the Proposed Project operational onsite stationary source emissions as well as the mobile source (off-site motor vehicle, marine vessel, and tugboat) emissions, and compare them to the thresholds of significance. Emissions of NOx,

ROG, and PM10 pollutants during operation are above the significance thresholds.

In accordance with its rules, as a part of the permitting process, the BAAQMD would require ConocoPhillips to provide Emission Reduction Credits in connection with the Proposed Project for certain stationary source emissions. Such Emission Reduction Credits can be either be credits applied from previous reductions in air pollutant emissions or can be actual reductions in emissions that would occur concurrent with the Proposed Project; however, for the purposes of this EIR, only actual changes in emissions are considered in evaluating an environmental impact (see Mitigation Measures discussion below).

Mitigation Measures

Reactive Organic Gas Reductions ConocoPhillips has indicated that it could reduce emissions from the wastewater treatment plant at the site by venting emissions to a thermal oxidizer. Installation of these controls would reduce ROG emissions from the wastewater treatment plant. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 (see below) shall be implemented to reduce net ROG emissions at the Refinery.

The emissions reduction for the wastewater treatment plant was calculated by using source testing and modeling data obtained by BAAQMD. In August 2005 and July 2006, the BAAQMD conducted source testing on the Dissolved Air Floatation (DAF) vents to measure the concentration of organic compounds and measure flow. Results from the tests reported that 37 tons per year ROG emissions are generated from the DAF vents. Modeling of the DAF outlet channel (and downstream sumps) by the BAAQMD indicates ROG emissions to be 8 tons per

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-34 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

TABLE 4.2-10 CONOCOPHILLIPS CFEP TOTAL PROJECT DAILY EMISSIONS (pounds per day)

Source NOx SO2 PM10 ROG CO

New Unit 240/246 HGO Feed Heater 18 26 12 8 43

New SRU (Unit 235) 29 201 3 2 24

TGU Sulfur Loading Vent 0 2 0 0 0

Tanks 101, 168 & 169 Permit Condition Change 0 0 0 44 0

Existing Tanks 0 0 0 26 0

Fugitives 0 0 0 35 0

Paved Roads 0 0 6 0 0

Unit 240 Boiler B-1 Reductions -123 0 -16 -12 -292

Hydrogen Plant Emission Increases 170 30 95 82 212

Increased Heater Utilization 40 7 17 13 15

Increased Tank Utilization 0 0 0 6 0

Increased Railcars 12.1 0.9 0.4 0.7 1.8

Truck and Commuter Auto Trips 12.1 <0.1 0.4 0.9 14.6

Proposed Project Emissions 158 267 118 206 18

Applied Mitigation

DAF Thermal Incinerator Reductions 1 <1 <1 -242 +1

Refinery Steam Power Plant -81 0 0 0 0

Carbon Plant SO2 Reductions 0 -230 0 0 0

Carbon Plant Baghouse 0 0 -41 0 0

Use of ROG to Offset NOx -36 0 0 +36 0

Mitigation Subtotal -116 -230 -41 -206 +1

Mitigated Project Emissions 42 37 77 0 19

Threshold 80 - 80 80 -

SOURCE: ConocoPhillips, 2006, emissions revised October 18. Air Liquide, Hydrogen Plant Project Authority to Construct Application and Significant Revision of Major Facility Permit, October 2006, with supplements.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-35 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

TABLE 4.2-11 CONOCOPHILLIPS CFEP TOTAL PROJECT ANNUAL EMISSIONS (tons per year)

Source NOx SO2 PM10 ROG CO

New Unit 240/246 HGO Feed Heater 3.2 4.7 2.1 1.5 7.8

New Unit 240/246 Startup/Shutdown <0.01 <0.01 --- 0.03 <0.01

New SRU (Unit 235) 5.3 36.7 0.6 0.4 4.3

TGU Sulfur Loading Vent 0 0.4 0 0 0

Tanks 101, 168 & 169 Permit Condition Change 0 0 0 8.1 0

Existing Tanks 0 0 0 4.8 0

Fugitives 0 0 0 6.3 0

Paved Roads 0 0 1.1 0 0

Unit 240 Boiler B-1 Reductions -22.4 0 -2.9 -2.1 -53.3

Hydrogen Plant Emission Increases 28.2 5.0 15.8 13.8 35.2

Hydrogen Plant Startup/Shutdown 2.7 0 0 0.1 11.0

Increased Heater Utilization 7.2 1.2 3.1 2.3 2.8

Increased Tank Utilization 0 0 0 1.0 0

Increased Railcars 2.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3

Truck and Commuter Auto Trips 2.2 <0.1 0.1 0.2 2.7

Proposed Project Emissions 28.6 48.2 20.0 36.5 10.8

Applied Mitigation

Carbon Plant SO2 Reductions 0 -42.0 0 0 0

DAF Thermal Incinerator Reductions 0.2 0.02 0.01 -44.1 0.2

Refinery Steam Power Plant -14.7 0 0 0 0

Carbon Plant Baghouse 0 0 -7.5 0 0

Use of ROG to Offset NOx -7.6 0 0 +7.6 0

Mitigation Subtotal -22.1 -42.0 -7.5 -36.5 0.2

Mitigated Project Emissions 6.5 6.2 12.4 0.0 11.0

Threshold 15 - 15 15 -

SOURCES: ConocoPhillips, 2006. Air Liquide, Hydrogen Plant Project Authority to Construct Application and Significant Revision of Major Facility Permit, October 2006, with supplements.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-36 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality year. Consequently, the DAF vent and channel emissions amount to 45 tons per year. A thermal oxidizer with 98 percent efficiency would be installed to reduce ROG emissions by 242 pounds per day and 44.1 tons per year.

Mitigation Measure 4.2-2a: The four Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) vents associated with the onsite wastewater treatment plant shall be routed to a Thermal Oxidizer with a destruction efficiency of no less than 98 percent. The gas stream shall be scrubbed to remove H2S prior to incineration. The DAF outlet channel and downstream sumps shall be sealed by a solid cover with gaskets. Any vents installed on the covered channel shall be routed to the thermal oxidizer. Installation of these controls shall reduce organic emissions by at least 242 pounds per day and 44.1 tons per year (assumed efficiency of 98 percent for both the thermal oxidizer and the channel covers).

Nitrogen Oxide Reductions The steam power plant gas turbine emissions are required to be abated by an SCR system by

BAAQMD Permit Condition 12122. Under this permit condition, Part 9, NOx emissions from each turbine/duct burner set are required to not exceed 528 pounds/day. Continuous emissions monitoring has recorded NOx concentrations in the stacks from the existing gas turbine/HRSG sets. For a 3-year baseline period (between August 2003, and August 2006), the NOx concentration in the stack averaged 6.94 ppmv for each of the three units combined, which results in combined total mass NOx emissions of 101.9 tons per year. Mitigation Measure 4.2-2 shall be implemented, which would require a new catalyst to be installed that would reduce NOx emissions by at least 1 ppmv, thereby reducing NOx emissions by 81 pounds per day and 14.7 tons per year.

Mitigation Measure 4.2-2b: The Refinery Steam Power Plant uses three simple-cycle gas turbines to generate electricity, and uses gas turbine waste heat to generate steam. Each gas turbine has a nitrogen oxide (NOx) catalyst system located at the base of the exhaust stack. The Refinery shall take a new permit limit to achieve a reduction of NOx concentration in each stack by 1 ppm from its current operating baseline. This 1 ppm of NOx equates to a reduction of 81 pounds per day and 14.7 tons per year.

Sulfur Dioxide and Particulate Matter Reductions ConocoPhillips owns and operates a Carbon Plant (Plant No. 22) that is contiguous to the Refinery and ConocoPhillips has suggested two mitigation options associated with the operations of the Carbon Plant that would result in a reduction of 42 tons/year of SO2 and a reduction of

7.5 tons per year of PM10. Therefore, Mitigation Measures 4.2-3 and 4.2-4 that would require SO2 reductions and improved bag technology at the Carbon Plant, respectively, shall be implemented to reduce net POC emissions at the Refinery.

Mitigation Measure 4.2-2c: Operations at the ConocoPhillips’ Carbon Plant shall be modified to result in a decrease in SO2 emissions of at least 230 pounds per day and 42 tons per year.

Mitigation Measure 4.2-2d: The baghouse at the Carbon Plant shall use improved bag technology to capture particulate matter (PM10) from the calcined coke operation.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-37 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

Installation of the improved bag technology shall reduce PM10 emissions by at least 41 pounds per day and 7.5 tons per year.

Use of ROG to Offset NOx BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 2, Section 2-2-302.3 allows the use of ROG emission reduction credits to offset NOx for the purposes of New Source Review permit requirements because ROG and NOx emissions are both precursors to the formation of ozone (O3). Since both are precursors, both would result in the formation of O3, with the same adverse regional air quality effect. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 shall be implemented, which would result in an overall net decrease of approximately 36 pounds per day and 7.6 tons per year of ROG emissions compared to baseline conditions. The decrease in emissions can be used as a ROG emission reduction credit to offset

NOx. The BAAQMD has concurred with this mitigation offset approach for the purposes of this CEQA document.

Mitigation Measure 4.2-2e: Net reductions in ROG emissions associated with the Proposed Project mitigations shall be used to offset 36 pounds per day and 7.6 tons per year of NOx associated with the Proposed Project.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact 4.2-3: Operational activities associated with the implementation of the Proposed Project could lead to increases in odorous emissions. This would be a less-than-significant impact.

Some substances present in products and byproducts of the refining processes and in materials used by the Refinery are known to cause odors. Relevant to the Proposed Project are such substances as H2S, SO2, and other reduced-sulfur compounds, ammonia, and some organic compounds, including benzene, naphthalene, and toluene.

Most changes from the Proposed Project would have little potential for additional odors. The new Sulfur Recovery Unit would be closed loop and the new sulfur pit vapors would be vented to the front of the process unit or alternatively to the existing Unit 238 Claus reaction furnace. The only emissions from the plant would be released from the thermal oxidizer after all residual H2S is converted to SO2. These modifications provide more H2S control in turn for a small increase in less-odorous SO2 which represents an odor control improvement over current operations. The low amounts of SO2 released from an approximately 300 foot stack would not be expected to produce detectable odors. This represents an odor control improvement over current conditions.

In addition, ConocoPhillips also proposes to install sulfur degassing facilities and a new, fixed- roof, sulfur storage tank (with vapor recovery) that would store degassed sulfur prior to loading onto trucks. The degassing process would reduce H2S to less than 10 parts per million by weight

(ppmw) in the sulfur product (current sulfur product can contain up to 300 ppmw H2S). Vapors from the degassing process and the storage tank vapor recovery system would be routed to the

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-38 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

Claus reaction furnace. The degassed sulfur product would contain much less H2S during storage and transfer, reducing potential worker exposure and potential for odors from H2S from these operations.

Sulfur product loading facilities currently collect emissions from truck vents and route them to the Stretford scrubber for control. The Proposed Project would result in a new truck vent control system and would route the truck vent H2S emissions to the new tail gas incinerator at the new

TGTU. The tail gas incinerator would then combust H2S to form SO2. There would be a small increase in SO2 emissions due to this change. This increase would not be noticeable relative to the existing TGTU stack SO2 emissions and would not result in an increase in odors.

Aqueous ammonia would be stored and used by the HGO feed heater and the SMR furnace as part of combustion emission controls. Stack ammonia slip emissions would occur from these combustion devices. A small amount of ammonia would also be produced at the Hydrogen Plant deaerator vent. Ammonia concentrations at the facility boundary from these emission sources can be estimated from screening modeling using the EPA SCREEN3 dispersion model, which estimates ground-level pollutant concentrations using worst-case meteorological data. The highest ammonia concentration from all three sources together estimated using SCREEN3 was found to be 0.1 ppm,8 well below the ammonia odor detection level. The Proposed Project would result in a net increase in emissions of organic compounds, including benzene, naphthalene, and toluene; however, maximum ground-level concentrations of these compounds from the health risk assessment performed for the public health analysis were also below odor detection thresholds.

Unrelated to the Proposed Project, ConocoPhillips is planning to install a new odor abatement compressor to control odors from certain storage tanks that currently do not have odor control. This compressor will serve as a back-up compressor for the flare gas recovery system. This will eliminate some flaring events that have occurred in the past.

Mitigation: None required.

4.2.5 Cumulative Impacts

Impact 4.2-4: The Proposed Project would contribute to cumulative regional air emissions; however, it would not be cumulatively considerable and it would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. This would be a potentially significant impact that would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with mitigation.

According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. For any project that does not individually have significant operational air quality impacts, the determination of significant cumulative impact is based on an evaluation of the

8 ConocoPhillips, Rodeo Clean Fuels Expansion Project Air Quality Supplement, May 2006.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-39 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality consistency of the project with the local general plan and of the general plan with the regional air quality plan. As discussed in Impact 4.2-2, with the proposed mitigation measures the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact on air quality. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use, Plans, and Policies, the Proposed Project is consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan which in turn is consistent with the BAAQMD’s current air quality plan (2005 Ozone Strategy). As a result, the Proposed Project satisfies these conditions and therefore would not result in a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.

References – Air Quality Air Liquide, Hydrogen Plant Project Authority to Construct Application and Significant Revision of Major Facility Permit, October 2006, with supplements. Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Proposed Final San Francisco Bay Area Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the National Carbon Monoxide Standard, July 1994. Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard, June 1999. Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Adopted Revised Bay Area 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan, October 2001. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines – Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December 1999. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2006, Ambient Air Quality Standards and Bay Area Attainment Status, http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm, webpage last updated May 18, 2006. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (Final), adopted January 4, 2006 as published (2006). California Air Resources Board, California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, updated 2006, www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm, accessed November 7, 2006. Code of Federal Regulation Title 40, Volume 6, Part 60 (40CFR60), Standards of Performance for Bulk Gasoline Terminals, July 1, 2003. Code of Federal Regulation Title 40, Volume 3, Part 52 (40CFR52), Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, July 1, 2003. ConocoPhillips. Clean Fuels Expansion Project Authority to Construct Application and Significant Revision of Major Facility Permit with Supplements, May, 2006. ConocoPhillips, Rodeo Clean Fuels Expansion Project Air Quality Supplement, as revised September 2006.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.2-40 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

4.3 Biological Resources

The Clean Fuels Expansion Project would cause no potentially significant, unmitigable biological impact. • Proposed sites for project components are currently developed or barren and entirely within the operating Refinery. Placement and construction of project components would have no impact on biological resources of those sites. • Potential impacts to the San Francisco Bay estuary ecosystem, including special status fisheries, could result from introduction of non-indigenous species in ballast water release or through hull fouling for vessels transporting crude oil and products. Overall marine traffic would decrease due to the Proposed Project. Overall ballast water discharge is expected to not change appreciably or may decrease with the Proposed Project. Continued compliance with the Marine Invasive Species Act, and with Coast Guard requirements under the National Invasive Species Act, would minimize risk of introducing non-indigenous species. This impact would be less than significant. • Potential impacts to special status fisheries could result if additional wastewater or pollutant discharges into San Pablo Bay were to occur associated with the Proposed Project. The State Implementation Plan and the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan regulate such discharges through NPDES permits, a principal tool used in protection of aquatic sensitive species and other “beneficial uses” of State water resources. • Potential impacts to special status fisheries could occur with additional water discharges from other non-refinery industrial projects, together with cumulative refinery projects. However, compliance with Refinery NPDES permit conditions would keep this impact less than cumulatively considerable. • Continued compliance with the discharge requirements of the Refinery’s NPDES permit would reduce potential biological impacts of increased pollutant discharge to less-than-significant levels. The Refinery has in place an Oil Spill Contingency and Response Plan, as required by law, that reduces potential impacts of accidental releases to less-than-significant levels.

4.3.1 Introduction This section assesses the potential for the Proposed Project to result in significant adverse environmental impacts to biological resources. The analysis first defines the range of biological resources potentially exposed to effects. It then determines the Proposed Project elements which may have measurable impacts on these resources, following the standards of “reasonableness” as per CEQA Guidelines 15151. Finally, it evaluates the impacts to determine if, alone or together, they breach the stated criteria for significance and, if so, whether they can be mitigated to less- than-significant levels.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

4.3.2 Setting

4.3.2.1 Regional Setting The ConocoPhillips Refinery is located just north of the town of Rodeo in an unincorporated area of northwestern Contra Costa County (see Figure 3-1). The western limit of the parcel owned by ConocoPhillips borders San Pablo Bay at Davis Point, where the bay narrows at the entrance of Carquinez Strait. From the bay, the parcel extends inland to the east, rising to about 300 feet in elevation towards its eastern edge. Generally, the parcel is bordered by, and partially includes, hills to the north and east. The southwestern portion of the site occurs on more gradually sloping hills and relatively level areas that continue south into the Rodeo area.

The Refinery is located in the Bay Area-Delta Bioregion (as defined by the State’s Natural Communities Conservation Program). This Bioregion is comprised of a variety of natural communities that range from salt marshes to chaparral to oak woodlands. The high diversity of vegetation found in Contra Costa County is a result of topographic and micro-climate diversity and, combined with the rapid pace of development in the region, has resulted in a high degree of endangerment for local flora and fauna.

4.3.2.2 Project Setting The ConocoPhillips parcel covers approximately 1,100 acres, including an approximately 495 acre highly developed Refinery complex containing Refinery operations with adjacent undeveloped buffer areas constituting most of the remaining acreage. The parcel is bisected by the north-south running Interstate-80 (I-80), with most of the developed Refinery area being west of the freeway and most of the undeveloped area being upland habitat to the east of the freeway (this can be seen on the aerial orthophoto base of Figure 3-2, Refinery Boundary and Vicinity). The portion of the parcel west of I-80 is bordered to the north by the Valero Terminal, to the east by I-80, to the south by the Bayo Vista residential area, and to the west by San Pablo Bay. The portion of the parcel east of I-80 is bordered to the north by Cañada del Cierbo, an intermittent stream, to the west and south by undeveloped, mostly agricultural land, and to the west by I-80. The Proposed Project would be confined to the developed Refinery area west of I-80, between I- 80 and San Pablo Avenue (see Figure 3-3, Locations of Site Modifications). This analysis will treat the setting of the Proposed Project at three levels:

• Refinery Complex. The entire area of developed Refinery facilities and the habitats contained therein. The Proposed Project Area, as defined below, is entirely included within the Refinery Complex.

• Proposed Project Area. The sites of project components and the immediately adjacent areas. The Proposed Project Area is entirely located within the northern portion of the Refinery Complex, bordered by I-80 to the east, San Pablo Avenue to the west, a Refinery tank farm to the north, and extensive Refinery operational area to the south.

• Proposed Project Vicinity. Areas adjacent to, and excluding, the Refinery Complex. The Proposed Project Vicinity principally includes San Pablo Bay adjacent to the Refinery,

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

coastal salt marsh at the edge of San Pablo Bay in the vicinity of the Refinery, and, the undeveloped buffer areas surrounding the Refinery Complex.

Detailed biological surveys and analyses of the Study Area (Refinery Complex and Proposed Project Vicinity) were conducted and reported in Section 7.1 (Vegetation and Wildlife) of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Unocal Corporation, Reformulated Gasoline Project (State Clearinghouse # 93121027) [herein referred to as the 1994 evaluation (Contra Costa County, 1994)]. A major focus of these surveys was to search for habitats useful to, or occupied by, special status species. The field surveys were conducted by a wildlife biologist and a botanist on December 17, 1993. The survey included detailed examination and mapping of wetland and lacustrine (open water) habitats found within the Refinery Complex. In addition, the field survey included ground-truthing of an aerial photograph-derived vegetation map of the entire parcel (Refinery and buffer areas) and an analysis of the potential for special-status species to occur in these habitats.

An ESA biologist conducted a site visit and habitat evaluation on January 9, 2003 (for Methods see “Special Status Species” below) for the ConocoPhillips ULSD/Strategic Modernization Project Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse # 2002122017) (Contra Costa County, 2003). The focus of this site evaluation was in the north-central area of the Refinery Complex between I-80 and San Pablo Avenue, inclusive of the locations of all present Proposed Project components. The extent of the ConocoPhillips parcel was viewed from several vantage points and the accuracy of the 1994 evaluation vegetation map was evaluated in respect to 2003 conditions.

For the purposes of evaluation of the present Proposed Project, an ESA biologist examined high resolution 1994 and 2005 aerial photographs of the Refinery Complex and examined the Proposed Project Area on March 19, 2006 from vantage points off I-80 and San Pablo Avenue. For the most part, Refinery and habitat conditions and extent have not changed since the 1994 evaluation. Exceptions include the following. Wetland vegetation noted in the 1994 evaluation as occurring in the smaller of the two storm basins in the southern portion of the Refinery Complex no longer occurs, the basin currently appearing as lined and void of vegetation. Also, a centrally located patch of freshwater wetland vegetation noted in the 1994 evaluation no longer exists. This location was formerly a used as catch basin for Unit 220, which has been demolished. The catch basin was filled in during the reformulated gasoline project somewhere during the 1995-1996 timeframe under different Refinery ownership. Adjacent to the Proposed Project area (southeast of the Hydrocracker Expansion Unit 246; see Figure 3-3), this area is void of vegetation and appears to function as a temporary storage and work area.

The 1994 evaluation identified seven plant communities and wildlife habitat types as occurring within the study area. The 2003 and present ESA evaluations generally concurred with this finding (Figure 4.3-1, Habitat Types within the Project Vicinity and Areas of Project Impacts). Habitat terms in the following analysis differ slightly from the 1994 evaluation, reflecting updates in the classification systems used in the report. Terms presented here are derived from the

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report Figure 4.3-1

Areas of Impact Estuarine Open Water Coastal and Valley Freshwater/Marsh* Northern Coastal Salt Marsh/ Coastal Brackish Marsh* Non-native Grassland Northern Coastal Scrub Eucalyptus Grove Barren and Urban *Sensitive Habitat

rea. s a s and Areas of Project Impacts LEGEND ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project

Habitat Types within the Project Vicinity

nal habitat types present in thi in present types habitat nal

tio

Add

N Feet 0 1000 SOURCE: ESA 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

California Wildlife Habitat Relations System (“WHR”; CDFG, 2002a) and the List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database (CDFG, 2003).

Habitats in the Refinery Complex The habitats on site and adjacent to the Proposed Project area were visited and described; “special status” (see below) plants and animals associated with these habitats were researched and described; all records of these organisms were identified in an approximately 5 mile radius of the Proposed Project area, but extending to 7 miles south along the Coast of Contra Costa County to include coastal habitat associated with Point Pinole.

Habitats occurring in the operating Refinery area consist of the following: Barren and Urban (Developed Habitats), Coastal Brackish Marsh and Northern Coastal Saltmarsh (Saline Emergent Wetland), and Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (Fresh Emergent Wetland).

Developed Habitats: Barren and Urban The most abundant “habitat” type in the Refinery Complex can be classified as barren using the WHR system. This includes areas with buildings or pavement with less than 2% total herbaceous vegetative cover or less than 10% tree or shrub cover (CDFG, 2002a). The developed areas of the operating Refinery have, for the most part, been cleared of vegetation and are maintained this way for fire prevention purposes. Maintenance of vegetation-free areas where Refinery structures or roads are not located is achieved with a coating of “sealcoat” (an asphalt/latex/fiber product used to provide a growth-inhibiting surface cover). A few locations where the coating has not been maintained support scattered ruderal plant species (non-native weedy vegetation) such as bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), wild oats (Avena sp.), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), and wild radish (Raphanus sativus). Total plant cover in these areas is generally sufficiently sparse that these areas remain classified as Barren.

Urban habitat generally consists of planted vegetation that includes tree groves, street strips, and other landscaped features in an urban setting. In the Refinery Complex, Urban habitat is represented by eucalyptus trees planted along roads and around buildings, a grove of blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) at the southern end of the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) property on the east side of San Pablo Avenue, and other small areas of landscaping around office and administration buildings. While individual landscaped areas can be of limited habitat value, the overall mosaic can provide habitat of some value to common urban adapted species such as rock dove (Columba livia), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), all of which were observed in the Refinery area during 1993 surveys for the 1994 evaluation.

Eucalyptus trees and groves can serve as roosts, perches and nest sites for raptors such as red- tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and other birds, including American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and barn owl (Tyto alba). Both red-tailed hawk and American crow were recorded from the Refinery area in the 1993 surveys.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-5 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

The barren areas of operating Refinery structures, roadways, and coated ground provide little to no habitat for plants or animals. While in theory some urban adapted birds and other animals could make use of structures for roosts or other purposes, the high and constant amount of disturbance involved with operations, in addition to the large continuous areas lacking in vegetation and associated food resources, and the numerous barriers to movement are likely to dissuade even occasional use by wildlife.

The areas of urban habitat are expected to support, or provide for occasional use by, wildlife typically found in this setting. Urban habitat as it occurs in the Refinery Complex, found in patches along San Pablo Avenue or generally associated with it (the administrative office buildings and the PG&E property), may also be used by some species that inhabit the vegetated buffer areas adjacent to the Refinery.

Wetland and Lacustrine Habitats: Northern Coastal Salt Marsh, Coastal Brackish Marsh, and Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh; Ponds Three types of wetland are found in the southwestern part of the Refinery Complex. Northern Coastal Salt Marsh occurs along the outer border of the Safety Basin, a retention pond which is part of the untreated saltwater transport and storage system used in cooling the Refinery. Coastal Brackish Marsh is found associated with the Safety Basin and with the transport canals that are part of this system. Both of these habitat types are classified as sensitive in California by the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFG, 2002a).

Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh is found around the Refinery Complex’s two stormwater basins (southwestern part of the Refinery) and along the drainage channels that direct water into these basins. The drainage channels carry runoff from the undeveloped area east of I-80 into the stormwater basins, and eventually into San Pablo Bay. Stormwater drainage from the developed parts of the Refinery is directed to the Refinery’s wastewater treatment plant.

Open water Lacustrine or Pond habitat is found in the Safety Basin and the canals connecting to it as discussed above.

Northern Coastal Salt Marsh is dominated by halophytic vegetation that is usually segregated into zones corresponding to differing frequency and duration of inundation during the diurnal tidal cycle. Cordgrass (Spartina spp.) often dominates the more submerged zone, then, moving upward in elevation, pickleweed (Salicornia spp.) often dominates the mid-levels. Toward the upland interface, halophytes with less tolerance for inundation are found, common dominants including saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), alkali heath (Frankenia grandifolia), and other species. A number of wildlife species are adapted and more or less restricted to this habitat type, including the salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), and black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus). The listed status of these rare and endangered species is reflective of the greatly diminished extent of this habitat type in the San Francisco Bay area and elsewhere.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-6 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

Coastal Brackish Marsh is usually dominated by dense cover of perennial, emergent herbaceous plants such as sedges (Carex spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), and cattails (Typha spp.). Physical characteristics of sites supporting this habitat are often similar to those supporting salt marsh, although there is a significant input of fresh water. Salinity levels may vary diurnally and seasonally depending on tide level and seasonality of freshwater input. This habitat type is often transitional between salt marsh habitat and freshwater habitat and often contains species typical of these habitats.

Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (included in Fresh Emergent Wetland in the WHR system) is also dominated by a dense cover of perennial, emergent herbaceous plants. Dominants often include bulrush (Scirpus spp.) and cattail, in addition to rushes and sedges. As the habitat name indicates, this habitat type is found in permanently flooded areas of fresh water.

Numerous wildlife species, particularly waterfowl and shorebirds, use these wetland habitat types for foraging and resting and were observed during the 1993 surveys. These include double- crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). See the 1994 evaluation for greater detail on wildlife usage of these habitat types and survey observations.

Habitats in the Project Area The Proposed Project Area (the sites of project components and the immediately adjacent areas) is centrally located and entirely within the Refinery Complex. The butane loading rack would be constructed near the western shore of the Refinery just west of the long wharf at the Refinery within an existing rail loading facility. All project components are located on sites currently occupied with Refinery equipment and devoid of vegetation or other biological resources (classifiable as Barren as described above). Thus the proposed placement/work areas of all project components would be located on Barren areas that offer little or no habitat value to plants or animals.

All Proposed Project components are surrounded by existing, developed Refinery operations or Refinery area devoid of vegetation. The Proposed Project components are not proximate to wetland or urban habitat and are separated from these by at least 300 feet (usually more than 500 feet) of extensive Refinery operational structures and features (i.e. significant barriers to movement). The tank farm at the northern extent of the Refinery Complex, borders a buffer area of coastal scrub.

As is the case for all stormwater drainage for the operating Refinery area, the Proposed Project area stormwater drainage is directed to the Refinery’s stormwater treatment plant. Thus drainage from the Proposed Project area does not enter the wetland habitats found within the Refinery Complex.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-7 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

Habitats in the Proposed Project Vicinity The Refinery Complex is bordered on all sides by undeveloped area. To the east, beyond I-80, is extensive undeveloped land, principally Non-Native Grassland. To the south, a 300-600 foot buffer of mostly disturbed ruderal vegetation and Non-Native Grassland separates the Refinery from the residential Bayo Vista area. To the north, a few hundred feet wide strip of similar habitat, in addition to Northern Coastal Scrub separates the Refinery from the Valero Terminal. The west side of the Refinery is bordered by the estuarine open water habitat of San Pablo Bay.

Non-Native Grassland covers the majority of the ConocoPhillips parcel east of I-80. The 1994 evaluation (Contra Costa County, 1994), noted the potential for, but did not document, several sensitive plant communities in this area including Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland, Central Coast Riparian Woodland, and Freshwater Emergent Wetland (Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh as used above). In addition to the potential for several special-status species to be discussed below, wildlife commonly found in this type of habitat is likely to occur. This includes mice, gophers, ground squirrels, red fox, gopher snakes, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, black-tailed deer, and numerous other species.

Northern Coastal Scrub is found in the area adjacent to and north of the Refinery. This area is dominated by shrubs, including Coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California buckeye (Aesculus californicus), and willow (Salix sp.) also occur here, as well as cow parsnip (Heracleum lanatum) and pearly everlasting (Gnaphalium sp.). This habitat type may support wildlife such as California ground squirrel, garter snake, and western fence lizard.

Refer to the 1994 evaluation for greater detail concerning these project vicinity habitats.

The Open Water Estuarine habitat of San Francisco Bay, of which San Pablo Bay is a continuous part, supports a diverse marine biota. San Pablo Bay is relatively shallow, averaging less than 10 feet in depth with seasonal and annual variations in salinity. Salinity can vary from nearly freshwater conditions following, for example, rapid and voluminous Sierra snowmelt to very saline conditions during low periods, typically in the fall (CDM, 2000). Over 40 species of fish occur in San Pablo Bay, the complement at a particular time depending on migrational patterns and on salinity levels. Generally, the salinity levels are lower upstream (near Carquinez Strait), this area supporting more estuarine species and less marine species. Generally, marine species occur in San Pablo Bay only when salinity levels are elevated seasonally or during dry years. Typical resident estuarine species include longfin smelt, starry flounder, and staghorn sculpin. Marine species that occur during favorable salinity conditions include jacksmelt, shiner perch, Pacific herring, bay goby and white croaker. A number of salmonid species and striped bass pass through San Pablo Bay during migratory periods. The Bay and adjacent wetlands also provide important habitat for shorebirds and waterfowl such as those mentioned in the above discussion of wetland and lacustrine habitats.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-8 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

Contra Costa General Plan Significant Ecological Areas The Contra Costa General Plan (Contra Costa County, 2005), Conservation Element 8.6, specify Significant Ecological Resource Areas throughout the County. Significant Ecological Resource Areas in general proximity to the Proposed Project vicinity include (numbering corresponds to the General Plan listing):

1. Point Pinole. Tidal and freshwater marshes, mudflat, grassland, eucalyptus plantation, and fishing pier which extends ¼ mile into San Pablo Bay. Valuable for migrating waterfowl and shorebirds. Habitat for soft-haired bird’s beak, California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, possibly for black rail, Samuel’s song sparrow and white-tailed (=black- shouldered) kite. The eucalyptus plantation serves as resting place for migrating monarch butterflies. (about 6 miles from Proposed Project).

2. San Pablo Creek and Wildcat Creek Marshes. Tidal marsh and mudflat. Potential for same species as described for Point Pinole.

5. San Pablo Ridge. The grassland areas on clay and clay loam soils on San Pablo Ridge support a population of Santa Cruz Tarweed which was transplanted from a hillside in Pinole. (about 5 miles away from Proposed Project).

7. Lone Tree Point. Stratified cliff face demonstrated the underlying trend of coastal uplift. Fossiliferous strata contain many marine-life fossils such as clams and oysters. (3/4 of a mile from Proposed Project).

40. Mouth of Pinole Creek. This coastal salt marsh area supports California black rail. (about 4 miles from Proposed Project).

Special Status Species A number of species known to occur in the Proposed Project vicinity are protected pursuant to federal and/or state endangered species laws, or have been designated as species of concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or species of special concern by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). In addition, Section 15380(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines provides a definition of rare, endangered, or threatened species that are not included in any listing. Species recognized under these terms are collectively referred to as “special status species.”

ESA compiled a list of special status plant and animal species potentially occurring in the general Proposed Project vicinity based on information from the USFWS, CDFG’s California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB, 2006), and the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS, 2006) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants. Evaluations of habitat suitability for special status species in the Refinery Complex and Proposed Project Vicinity were based on field observations from the 1993 surveys (Contra Costa County, 1994), the 2003 ESA site habitat evaluation and the 2006 ESA site evaluation.

The previous surveys conducted for the Refinery in 1993 (Contra Costa County, 1994) did not identify threatened or endangered species or sensitive habitats, other than wetlands and a few

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-9 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources wetland foraging birds species, within the operating Refinery area. Since that time, the status of several species has changed, most notably the California red-legged frog (listed as federally threatened in 1996 [61 FR 25813]). Table 4.3-1 provides a focused list of the plants and animals considered in this evaluation, as well as their status, habitat requirements and potential to occur within the Proposed Project Area or Proposed Project Vicinity (as defined above). These are species for which suitable habitat is available within the defined areas and/or for which there are occurrences documented by CNDDB, generally within a five mile radius. Appendix A provides the full listing, generated by the above sources, of species considered in this evaluation.

Special Status Terrestrial Species No special-status plant or animal species are considered to have potential to occur in the Proposed Project Area (the Proposed Project component locations and adjacent areas). There are, however, special-status species with potential to occur in other areas of the Refinery Complex and in the Proposed Project Vicinity.

Special status species with potential to occur in the Refinery Complex are mostly those associated with freshwater and/our saltwater marsh habitat. Species that have been observed in the wetland and open water areas of the Refinery (Contra Costa County, 1994) are a number of bird species that forage in these habitats. These include the great egret (Ardea alba), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), snowy egret (Egretta thula), and double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). Nesting habitat for these species is not found in the Refinery Complex. Other species with potential to occur in the saline marsh habitats within the Refinery Complex are California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), saltmarsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris raviventris), salt marsh wandering shrew (Sorex ornatus sinuosus), San Pablo vole (Microtus californicus sanpabloensis), and the plants soft bird’s beak (Cordylanthus mollis ssp. Mollis) and Delta tule pea (Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii). All of these species also have potential to occur associated with saline wetland habitat (for the most part, coastal salt marsh) in the Proposed Project vicinity. Two other species, short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) and curved-foot diving beetle (Hygrotus curvipes), may be found in saline or freshwater environments and have potential to occur in these wetland environments in addition to freshwater wetland habitat in the undeveloped buffer area east of I-80. Besides providing observed foraging habitat for the above noted birds, the wetland areas within the Refinery Complex provide at best marginal habitat for these species.

The grassland and included habitats east of I-80 have the potential to support California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), San Francisco lacewing (Nothochrysa californica), and Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia). If there are suitable water sources available, these grasslands may also support California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and there is potential for this species to disperse into wetland areas within the Refinery area by way of

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-10 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

TABLE 4.3-1 FOCUSED LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN OR NEAR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS REFINERY

Listing Status Common Name USFWS/ Scientific Name CDFG/CNPS General Habitat Potential to Occura

Fish Federal or State Threatened and Endangered Species

Tidewater goby FE/CSC Shallow waters of bays and PA: Low. Eucyclogobius newberryi estuaries, in lower stream RC: Low. reaches, in coastal stream PV: Low. lagoons Thought to be extirpated from San Francisco Bay (Moyle 2002) Delta smelt FT/CT Shallow, open waters of the PA: Low. Hypomesus transpacificus estuary where salinities range RC. Low. Critical Habitat designated from 2-7 ppt. Spawn and rear in PV: Low. sloughs and shallow edge waters of channels in upper Generally restricted to the Delta and Sacramento River, Sacramento-San Joaquin Suisun Marsh and Bay. Delta, including the Carquinez Strait and Suisun Bay. Not found westward of Carquinez bridge, except occasionally during extremely wet years. Coho salmon—Central California FT/CE Accessible Bay Area and PA: Low. coast DPS coastal rivers and streams with RC: Low. Oncorhynchus kisutch cover, cool water and sufficient PV: Low. dissolved oxygen. Require beds of loose, silt-free gravel for Although within the spawning. historical range of the species, coho are currently considered extinct in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento –San Joaquin River system (NMFS 2001). Steelhead – Central California FT/CSC Unblocked Bay Area and PA: Low. Coast DPS coastal rivers and streams, RC: Low. Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus requires clear, cool water and PV: High. clean gravels for spawning These fish are known to spawn in streams tributary to San Francisco and San Pablo Bays Steelhead-Central Valley DPS FT/-- Spawn in the Sacramento and PA: Low. Oncorhynchus mykiss San Joaquin Rivers and their RC: Low. tributaries PV: High. Migrate through San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays, as well as the Delta region to spawning grounds

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-11 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

TABLE 4.3-1 (continued) FOCUSED LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN OR NEAR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS REFINERY

Listing Status Common Name USFWS/ Scientific Name CDFG/CNPS General Habitat Potential to Occura

Fish (cont.) Chinook salmon—Central Valley FT/CT Spawning and rearing restricted PA: Low. spring-run to a few tributaries to the RC: Low Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Sacramento River basin. PV: High.

Migrate through San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to spawning streams Chinook salmon—Central Valley FC/CSC Spawning and rearing restricted PA: Low. fall/late fall-run to lowland reaches and RC: Low. Oncorhynchus tshawytscha tributaries to the Sacramento PV: High. River basin, require clean, cold water and gravel beds for Migrate through San spawning Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to spawning grounds Chinook salmon—winter run FE/CE Spawning restricted to the PA: Low. Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Sacramento River. Require RC: Low. Critical Habitat designated clean, cold water with gravel PV: High. beds. Migrate through San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to spawning streams Amphibians California red-legged frog FT/CSC Breeds in stock ponds, pools, PA: Low. Rana aurora draytonii and slow moving streams with RC: Low to Moderate. emergent vegetation; adjacent PV: Moderate. upland habitats are often used Potential habitat exists in outside the breeding season. freshwater habitats in RC and buffer area east of I- 80. Nearest CNDDB record approx. 1 mile south associated with Rodeo Creek. Reptiles Alameda whipsnake FT/CT Preferred habitat a mosaic of PA: Low. Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus open coastal scrub or chaparral RC: Low. Critical habitat designated and grassland with rocky PV: Moderate. outcrops Potential habitat may be present in grasslands east of I-80. Nearest CNDDB records approximately 7-8 miles southeast of Proposed Project site. Birds California black rail FSC/CT Nests and forages in tidal PA: Low. Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus emergent wetland with RC: Moderate. pickleweed. PV: Moderate. Potential marginal habitat present within Refinery and coastal vicinity. Nearest CNDDB record is approx. 1 mile north of Proposed Project.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-12 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

TABLE 4.3-1 (continued) FOCUSED LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN OR NEAR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS REFINERY

Listing Status Common Name USFWS/ Scientific Name CDFG/CNPS General Habitat Potential to Occura

Birds (cont.) California clapper rail FE/CE Nests and forages in emergent PA: Low. Rallus longirostris obsoletus wetlands with pickleweed, RC: Low. cordgrass, and bulrush. PV: Low. Potential habitat present within Refinery not of sufficient density. Nearest CNDDB record is approx. 4 miles south of Proposed Project. Mammals Salt marsh harvest mouse FE/CE Saline emergent marshlands PA: Low. Reithrodontomys raviventris with dense pickleweed. RC: Low to Moderate raviventris PV: Moderate. Potential marginal habitat present within Refinery and coastal vicinity. Numerous reported locations 3-5 miles north of Proposed Project in Solano County, north of Carquinez Straits. Nearest CNDDB record in Contra Costa County is at San Pablo Creek Marsh, approx. 7 miles south of Proposed Project. Plants Soft bird’s beak FE/CR/List 1B.2 Soft-haired bird’s beak is found PA: Low. Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis in heavy clay soils of either RC: Low. coastal salt or brackish marshes PV: Moderate. of northern San Francisco Bay. Nearby CNDDB locations are recorded from the area of Point Pinole, about 6 miles from Proposed Project area. Suitable habitat is not present within the RC but exists in nearby marshes. Santa Cruz tarplant FT/CE/List 1B.1 Coastal scrub, coastal sand PA: Low. Holocarpha macradenia dunes, openings in oak RC: Low. woodlands with sandy or PV: Low to Moderate. gravelly soil Potential habitat in grassland area east of Interstate 80 aned coastal scrub buffer area north of tank farm. Only extant regional populations are transplants. Nearest recorded natural population, from a horse pasture approx. 4 miles south of Proposed Project, was extirpated between 1983 and 1993.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-13 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

TABLE 4.3-1 (continued) FOCUSED LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN OR NEAR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS REFINERY

Listing Status Common Name USFWS/ Scientific Name CDFG/CNPS General Habitat Potential to Occura

Plants (cont.) Contra Costa goldfields FE/--/List 1B.1 Moist grasslands, vernal pools, PA: Low. Lasthenia conjugens cismontane woodlands, alkaline RC: Low. playas PV: Low. Habitat lacking in PV. Nearest CNND location is approx. 2 miles south of Proposed Project.

Other Species of Concern Invertebrates Monarch butterfly Wintering sites Eucalyptus groves used as PA: Low. Danaus plexippus protected by winter roost sites. RC: Low to Moderate. CDFG PV: Moderate. Wintering roosts are found at Point Pinole Regional Park. Potential wintering habitat (Eucalyptus grove) present in RC. Curved-foot hygrotus FSC/-- Found in a variety of aquatic PA: Low. diving beetle habitats, including vernal pools, RC: Moderate. Hygrotus curvipes stock ponds, ditches, often in PV: Moderate. alkaline conditions. Marginal habitat exists within RC and PV in seasonally ponded areas. San Francisco lacewing FSC/-- Grasslands and a variety of PA: Low. Nothochrysa californica habitats. RC: Low. PV: Moderate. Potential habitat exists in PV east of Interstate 80. Fish Sacramento perch FSC/CSC Slow moving sloughs, streams, PA: Low. Archoplites interruptus rivers, and lakes RC: Low. PV: Low. Distribution centered eastward from Carquinez Straits and only marginal habitat exists in the PV. Green sturgeon – southern DPS FPT/CSC Inhabit near-shore marine PA: Low. Acipenser medirostris waters from Mexico to the RC: Low. Bering Sea and are commonly PV: Moderate. observed in bays and estuaries along the western coast of Known to spawn in the North America. Southern DPS Sacramento River is only known to spawn in upper drainage, juveniles Sacramento River. outmigrate through San Francisco Estuary. Uncommon in the in the Sacramento-San Joaquin system.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-14 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

TABLE 4.3-1 (continued) FOCUSED LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN OR NEAR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS REFINERY

Listing Status Common Name USFWS/ Scientific Name CDFG/CNPS General Habitat Potential to Occura

Fish (cont.) River lamprey FSC/-- Pacific Ocean and estuaries; PA: Low. Lampetra ayresi spawning in coastal streams RC: Low. from Alaska to San Francisco PV: Moderate. Bay Migrate from ocean through San Francisco and San Pablo Bays to freshwater spawning habitat in larger streams of the lower Sacramento-San Joaquin system, Napa River, Alameda Creek and other tributaries to San Francisco Bay. Distribution and abundance of this species in California poorly understood, few occurrences documented in CA. Pacific lamprey FSC/-- Pacific Ocean and estuaries; PA: Low. Lampetra tridentata spawning in coastal streams RC: Low. from Alaska to Baja California PV: High. Migrate through San Francisco Estuary into freshwater tributaries, including the Sacramento- San Joaquin system, to spawn.

Sacramento splittail FSC/CSC Slow moving rivers, dead end PA: Low. Pogonichthys macrolepidotus sloughs, require flooded RC: Low. vegetation for spawning and PV: Moderate. foraging for young Spawn in freshwater in the lower Delta. Once common in San Pablo Bay and Carquinez Strait following high winter flows, now largely confined to: (1) the Delta, (2) Suisun Bay, (3) Suisun Marsh, (4) Napa River, (5) Petaluma River, and (6) other parts of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Longfin smelt FSC/-- Open waters of estuaries. PA: Low. Spirinchus thaleichthys Spawn in freshwater streams RC: Low. from February to April. Larval PV: High. rearing habitat consists of brackish estuarine waters. Spawn in lower San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers and upper Suisun Bay. Larval concentrations high in Suisun and San Pablo Bays.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-15 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

TABLE 4.3-1 (continued) FOCUSED LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN OR NEAR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS REFINERY

Listing Status Common Name USFWS/ Scientific Name CDFG/CNPS General Habitat Potential to Occura

Amphibians California tiger salamander FC/CSC Wintering sites occur in PA: Low. Ambystoma californiense grasslands occupied by RC: Low. burrowing mammals; breed in PV: Moderate. ponds, vernal pools, and slow- Potential habitat exists in moving or receding streams. PV east of Interstate 80. No CNDDB records within 5 miles of Proposed Project. Reptiles Western pond turtle FSC/CSC Freshwater ponds and slow PA: Low. Clemmys marmorata streams edged with sandy soils RC: Low. for laying eggs. PV: Moderate. Freshwater ponds with emergent aquatic vegetation in PV provide potential habitat. Nearest CNDDB sites are about 2 miles south of Proposed Project along Rodeo Creek. Birds Grasshopper sparrow FSC/-- Open fields, grassland PA: Low. Ammodramus savannarum RC: Low. PV: Moderate. Potential habitat occurs in PV east of I-80. Great egret --/* Forages for fishes, amphibians PA: Low. Ardea alba and invertebrates in freshwater RC: Present. (rookery sites) and saline emergent wetlands, PV: Present. nests in large trees Observed foraging within the RC as well as within the PV (1994 EIR). No nesting habitat available within the PV. Great blue heron --/* Colonial nester in trees along PA: Low. Ardea herodias (rookery sites) lakes and estuaries, forages in RC: Present. emergent wetlands PV: Present. Observed foraging within the RC as well as within the PV (1994 EIR). No nesting habitat available within the PV. Short-eared owl --/CSC Fresh water and salt marshes PA: Low. Asio flammeus and swamps, lowland RC: Low. meadows, irrigated fields PV: Moderate. Potential marginal habitat exists in PV east of I-80 and within RC. Western burrowing owl FSC/CSC Nests in mammal burrows in PA: Low. Athene cunicularia hypugaea open, sloping grasslands RC: Low. PV: Moderate. Potential habitat exists in PV east of I-80.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-16 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

TABLE 4.3-1 (continued) FOCUSED LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN OR NEAR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS REFINERY

Listing Status Common Name USFWS/ Scientific Name CDFG/CNPS General Habitat Potential to Occura

Birds (cont.) Snowy egret --/* Marshes, tidal flats, lakes, PA: Low. Egretta thula streams, nests in tall trees, RC: Present. usually near water PV: Present. Observed foraging within the RC as well as within the PV (1994 EIR). No nesting habitat available within the PV. White-tailed(=black-shouldered) --/3511 Nests near wet meadows and PA: Low. kite open grasslands, dense oak, RC: Low. Elanus leucurus willow or other large tree PV: High. stands, forages over grassland Foraging and marginal and marsh habitat nesting habitat occur in the PV in the grasslands east of I-80. California horned lark --/CSC Nests and forages in barren dirt PA: Low. Eremophila alpestris areas, shores, and gravel RC: Moderate. areas. PV: Moderate. Habitat available in RC and PV. Saltmarsh common yellowthroat FSC/CSC Breeds in moist saltmarsh PA: Low. Geothlypis trichas sinuosa habitats with dense, low cover. RC: Low-Moderate. PV: Moderate. Marginal habitat present in RC and adjacent coastal areas. Loggerhead shrike FSC/CSC Nests in shrublands and PA: Low. Lanius ludovicianus forages in open grasslands RC: Low. PV: Moderate. Foraging habitat and marginal nesting habitat available within PV. Suisun song sparrow FSC/CSC Endemic to Suisun Bay. PA: Low. Melospiza melodia maxillaris Inhabits brackish marshes, RC: Low. perching and nesting in stands PV: Low. of bulrush along tidal channels, Marginal habitat present in distribution ditches and Refinery and adjacent permanent ponds where coastal areas, however brackish conditions exist and Refinery vicinity outside foraging in bulrush and on known distribution range exposed tidal mudflats. (Nur 2002). San Pablo song sparrow FSC/-- Endemic to tidal marshes of PA: Low. Melospiza melodia samuelis San Pablo Bay. RC: Low. PV: Low. Marginal habitat present in Refinery and adjacent coastal areas, however Proposed Project Vicinity is outside known distribution range (Nur 2002).

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-17 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

TABLE 4.3-1 (continued) FOCUSED LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN OR NEAR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS REFINERY

Listing Status Common Name USFWS/ Scientific Name CDFG/CNPS General Habitat Potential to Occura

Birds (cont.) Double-crested cormorant --/CSC Nests along coast on isolated PA: Low. Phalacrocorax auritus (Rookery sites) islands or in trees along lake RC: Present. margins or on bridges. Forage PV: Present. inland on lakes, ponds, and Observed foraging in estuaries Safety Basins within the Refinery (1994 EIR), however no nesting habitat available within the PV. Mammals Townsend’s western big-eared bat FSC/CSC The distribution of this bat is PA: Low. Corynorhinus townsendi correlated largely with rocky RC: Moderate. townsendii situations where caves or PV: Moderate. abandoned mine tunnels are Potential roosting habitat in available. Humid coastal buildings and other man- regions, will only roost in the made structures in RC and open, extremely sensitive to PV. disturbance. Greater western mastiff bat FSC/CSC Open arid to semi-arid habitats, PA: Low. Eumops perotis californicus including woodlands, coastal RC: Moderate. scrub, chaparral, and PV: Moderate. grasslands. Roosts in trees, Potential roosting habitat in cliffs, dwellings. buildings and other man- made structures in RC and PV. San Pablo vole --/CSC Grassy habitats associated with PA: Low. Microtus californicus salt-marshes. RC: Low to Moderate. sanpabloensis PV: Low to Moderate. Marginal habitat present in Refinery and adjacent coastal areas. Nearest known record is from marsh near San Pablo. Suisun shrew FSC/CSC Tidal marshes, require dense PA: Low. Sorex ornatus sinuosus low cover above the mean tide RC: Low. line for nesting and foraging PV: Low. Marginal habitat present in Refinery and adjacent coastal areas. However, no CNDDB records for south shore of Suisun Bay. Salt marsh wandering shrew FSC/CSC Salt marsh habitat 6-8 feet PA: Low. Sorex vagrans halicoetes above sea level, with abundant RC: Moderate. pickleweed and driftwood. PV: Moderate. Marginal habitat present in Refinery and adjacent coastal areas.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-18 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

TABLE 4.3-1 (continued) FOCUSED LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN OR NEAR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS REFINERY

Listing Status Common Name USFWS/ Scientific Name CDFG/CNPS General Habitat Potential to Occura

Plants Suisun marsh aster FSC/--/List 1B.2 Occurs along levees of rivers PA: Low. and sloughs in Suisun and RC: Low. Napa marshes and around PV: Low. Delta islands. Extremely marginal habitat present in RC and adjacent coastal area. No CNDDB reports within 5 miles of Proposed Project. Western leatherwood --/--/List 1B.2 Numerous mesic vegetation PA: Low. Dirca occidentalis types including riparian forest RC: Low. and woodland. PV: Low. Suitable habitat may exist in PV but is subject to cattle grazing. Nearest CNDDB location is approx. 3 miles east of Proposed Project. Diablo helianthella FSC/--/List 1B.2 Openings in chaparral and PA: Low. Helianthella castanea broadleaved upland forest RC: Low. PV: Low. Habitat not present in PV. Nearest CNDDB location approx. ½ mile north of Proposed Project. Delta tule pea FSC/--/List 1B.2 Natural edges of estuarine PA: Low. Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii marshes, sloughs, and rivers in RC: Low to Moderate. the Sacramento – San Joaquin PV: Low to Moderate. Delta. Potential habitat present within RC extremely marginal. Nearest CNDDB record is approx. 1.5 miles northeast of Proposed Project. Mason’s lilaeopsis FSC/CR/List 1B.1 Brackish and freshwater PA: Low. Lilaeopsis masonii marshes. RC: Low. PV: Low. Suitable habitat not present within RC. No nearby Contra Costa records, but CNDDB record approx. 1.5 miles north of Proposed Project in Solano County, across Carquinez Strait. Robust monardella --/--/List 1B.2 Coastal scrub, cismontane PA: Low. Monardella villosa spp. globosa woodland, valley and foothill RC: Low. grassland; openings in PV: Low to Moderate. broadleafed upland forest and Suitable habitat may exist chaparral. in scrub habitat in northern buffer zone and grassland east of I-80. Only a few historic records of species in the County.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-19 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

TABLE 4.3-1 (continued) FOCUSED LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN OR NEAR THE CONOCOPHILLIPS REFINERY

Sensitive Plant Communities

Global State Name Rank Rank Potential to Occur

Coastal and valley freshwater marsh G3 S2.1 Observed within Refinery Complex and Proposed Project Vicinity (1994 EIR) Coastal brackish marsh G2 S2.1 Observed within Refinery Complex and Proposed Project Vicinity (1994 EIR) Northern coastal salt marsh G3 S3.2 Observed within Refinery Complex and Proposed Project Vicinity (1994 EIR) Valley needlegrass grassland G1 S3.1 Moderate. Potential to occur east of I-80

Status Codes

Federal Categories (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) California Native Plant Society (CNPS)

FE = Listed as Endangered by the Federal Government List 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in FT = Listed as Threatened by the Federal Government California and elsewhere FC = Candidate for Federal Listing 0.1: Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of FSC = Federal Species of Concern occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) 0.2: Fairly endangered in California (20-80% State Categories (California Department of Fish and Game) occurrences threatened) CE = Listed as Endangered by the State of California CT = Listed as Threatened by the State of California Threat Ranks CR = Listed as Rare by the State of California 0.1: Very threatened 3511 = Fully Protected Species 0.2: Threatened * = Special Animals 0.3: No current threats known CSC = California Species of Special Concern

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Global Heritage Program rarity ranks (for sensitive plant communities) G1: Fewer than 6 viable occurrences worldwide and/or 2000 acres G2: 6–20 viable occurrences worldwide and/or 2,000–10,000 acres G3: 21–100 viable occurrences worldwide and/or 10,000-50,000 acres G4: Greater than 100 viable occurrences worldwide and/or greater than 50,000 acres

State Rarity Ranks S1: Fewer than 6 viable occurrences statewide and/or 2000 acres S2: 6–20 viable occurrences statewide and/or 2000-10,000 acres S3: 21–100 viable occurrences statewide and/or 10,000-50,000 acres S4: Greater than 100 viable occurrences statewide and/or greater than 50,000 acres

a Potential to Occur evaluations considered three areas as defined in the text: the Proposed Project Area (PA), the Refinery Complex (RC), and the Proposed Project Vicinity (PV).

SOURCES: CNDDB, 2006; CNPS 2006; Garth and Tilden, 1986; Hickman, 1993; Jameson, 1988; Moyle, 2002; NMFS, 2001; Nur, 2002; Page and Burr, 1991; Peterson, 1990; Stebbins, 1985; U. S. Department of Commerce, 2000; U. S. Department of the Interior, 1994; USFWS, 2006.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-20 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources drainage channels that run under I-80. The coastal scrub habitat forming the northern buffer zone north of the central Refinery Complex and west of I-80 has the potential to support Santa Cruz tarplant and robust monardella (Monardella villosa ssp. globosa).

Other species with potential to occur in the Refinery Complex include monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), Townsend’s western big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendi townsendi), greater western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) and California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris). The potential winter roosting habitat for the monarch butterfly is the eucalyptus grove shown in Figure 4.3-1. The potential is minimized by the surrounding degree of disturbance associated with Refinery operations. Additionally, no monarchs have been observed, either in the 1993 and 2003 surveys, or by other observation in this grove that is nearby and highly visible from publicly accessible San Pablo Avenue. Buildings and other structures provide potential habitat for the two bat species. The piping and equipment found throughout much of the Refinery Complex does not provide suitable habitat. As noted in Table 4.3-1, habitat for the California horned lark includes barren dirt and gravel areas. Such areas in the Refinery Complex, particularly those that are away from the periphery, provide little or no foraging resources and sufficiently high levels of operational disturbance for these areas to be considered potential habitat for this species.

With the exception of waterfowl and shorebirds recorded in 1993 surveys (Contra Costa County, 1994), including double-crested cormorant, snowy egret, and great blue heron, no special status species have been observed or are likely to occur within the Proposed Project Area or Refinery Complex.

Special Status Species in San Pablo Bay A number of special status fish species have potential to occur in the waters and brackish marshes adjacent to the Refinery. Many species of fish migrate through San Pablo Bay waters, make use of marshes in the area for foraging and rearing habitat, and may make use of Rodeo Creek for foraging, spawning, and rearing habitat. Suisun Bay and its marshes to the east provide essential habitat for the federally threatened delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) and Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus). Other species that occur in the area include the federally endangered winter-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), the federally threatened steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), the federally proposed threatened green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), and the following federal species of special concern:, river lamprey (Lampetra ayersi), Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata), and longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys). Most of these species are migratory and would only be expected to be present in the area for relatively short periods of time during the year.

Wetlands Wetlands are ecologically productive habitats that support a rich variety of both plant and animal life. The importance and sensitivity of wetlands has increased as a result of their value as recharge areas and filters for water supplies and widespread filling and destruction to enable urban and agricultural development. In a jurisdictional sense, there are two definitions of a

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-21 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources wetland, one adopted by federal agencies and a separate definition adopted by the State of California. Both are presented below.

Federal Wetland Definition Wetlands are a subset of “waters of the United States” and receive protection under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The term “waters of the United States”, as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (33 CFR 328.3[a] and [b] [Corps, 2002]; and 40 CFR 230.3[s] [EPA, 2004]) , includes those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. In extant regulations, wetlands may be taken to be sloughs, wet meadows, or natural ponds; however, in 2001 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled1 that certain isolated wetlands do not fall under the jurisdiction of the CWA.

California Wetland Definition CDFG has adopted the Cowardin et al.2 definition of wetlands. The federal definition of wetlands requires three wetland identification parameters to be met, whereas the Cowardin definition requires the presence of only one. Thus, identification of wetlands by CDFG consists of the union of:

• all areas that are periodically inundated or saturated, or • in which at least seasonal dominance by hydrophytes may be documented, or • in which hydric soils are present.

The CDFG does not normally assert jurisdiction over wetlands unless they are subject to Streambed Alteration Agreements (California Fish and Game Code 1600-1607) or they support state-listed endangered species.

Jurisdictional Wetlands at the Proposed Project Site A number of wetland habitats occur within, or in the immediate vicinity of, the Refinery, including the northern coastal salt marsh, coastal brackish marsh, and freshwater marsh areas described above. These are all potentially jurisdictional wetlands, under both Army Corps of Engineers and CDFG regulations. However, to date no formal wetland delineations have been carried out at the Refinery. As described above, Proposed Project implementation would not impact these wetlands. No Proposed Project components are located in any of these habitats and drainage from the sites of Proposed Project components and adjacent Refinery area is already directed into the Refinery’s stormwater treatment system. Accidental discharges during construction would be similarly directed into the water treatment system.

1 Solid Waste Agency of Northwestern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers et al., January 8, 2001: 2 Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. Publ. No. FWS/OBS-79/31.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-22 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

4.3.2.3 Regulatory Setting This section briefly describes federal, state and local regulations, permits, and policies pertaining to biological resources and wetlands as they may apply to the Proposed Project.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regulation of Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands The Corps and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Projects that would result in the placement of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States require a Section 404 permit from the Corps. The proposed activities would not result in the discharge of fill into wetland areas under jurisdiction of the Corps.

California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement The CDFG regulates activities that would interfere with the natural flow of, or substantially alter, the channel, bed, or bank of a lake, river, or stream. These activities are regulated under the California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1616. Requirements to protect the integrity of biological resources and water quality are often conditions of streambed alteration agreements. Requirements may include avoidance or minimization of the use of heavy equipment, limitations on work periods to avoid impacts on wildlife and fisheries resources, and measures to restore degraded sites or compensate for permanent habitat losses. A Streambed Alteration Agreement may be required by CDFG for construction activities that have the potential to result in an accidental release into a jurisdictional area. Construction is not proposed, nor would construction activities potentially affect, any nearby areas that are subject to Sections 1600-1616.

Federal Endangered Species Act The USFWS (jurisdiction over plants, wildlife, and resident fish) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS; jurisdiction over anadromous fish and marine fish and mammals) oversee the federal Endangered Species Act. Section 7 of the Act mandates that all federal agencies consult with the USFWS and NMFS to ensure that federal agencies actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for listed species. The federal agency is required to consult with the USFWS and NMFS if it determines a “may effect” situation will occur in association with the Proposed Project. The federal Endangered Species Act prohibits the “take3” of any fish or wildlife species listed as Threatened or Endangered, including the destruction of habitat that could hinder species recovery.

Under Section 9 of the federal Endangered Species Act, the take prohibition applies only to wildlife and fish species. However, Section 9 does prohibit the removal, possession, damage or destruction of any Endangered plant from federal land. Section 9 also prohibits acts to remove, cut, dig up, damage, or destroy an Endangered plant species in nonfederal areas in knowing violation of any state law or in the course of criminal trespass. Candidate species and species that

3 Take is defined as harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, collecting, or attempting to engage in any such conduct.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-23 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources are proposed or under petition for listing receive no protection under Section 9 of the federal Endangered Species Act.

Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act requires the issuance of an “incidental take” permit before any public or private action may be taken that would potentially harm, harass, injure, kill, capture, collect, or otherwise hurt (i.e., take) any individual of an Endangered or Threatened species. The permit requires preparation and implementation of a habitat conservation plan that would offset the take of individuals that may occur, incidental to implementation of the project by providing for the overall preservation of the affected species through specific mitigation measures.

Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act states that without a permit issued by the U.S. Department of the Interior, it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill any migratory bird.

California Endangered Species Act (CESA) California implemented its own Endangered Species Act in 1984. The state act prohibits the take of Endangered and Threatened species; however, habitat destruction is not included in the state’s definition of take. Section 2090 of CESA requires state agencies to comply with endangered species protection and recovery and to promote conservation of these species. The CDFG administers the act and authorizes take through Section 2081 agreements (except for designated “fully protected species”).

Regarding rare plant species, CESA defers to the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977, which prohibits importing of rare and endangered plants into California, taking of rare and endangered plants, and selling of rare and endangered plants. State-listed plants are protected mainly in cases where state agencies are involved in projects under CEQA. In this case, plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act are not protected under CESA but can be protected under CEQA.

California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the removal of raptor nests.

State Lands Commission The State Lands Commission (SLC) administers lands owned by the state, which includes the beds of all naturally navigable waterways, such as major rivers, streams and lakes, and tidal and submerged lands below the high tide line. The SLC issues Land Use Leases or Permits for use of state lands that are determined to be consistent with the public trust values for fisheries, navigation, public access, recreation, wildlife habitat and open space. No project components are proposed on lands subject to a State Land Use Lease.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-24 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

However, all shipping operations that involve major marine vessels are subject to the Marine Invasive Species Act of 2003 (Public Resources Code Sections 71200 through 71271), which revised and expanded the California Ballast Water Management for Control of Nonindigenous Species Act of 1999 (AB 703), which is administered by the State Lands Commission. The Act regulates the handling of ballast water from marine vessels arriving at California ports in order to prevent or minimize the introduction of invasive species from other regions. The key components of the California Marine Invasive Species Act are presented in Table 4.3-2.

The Marine Facilities Division of the SLC administers the State’s Marine Invasive Species Program. The SLC vessel Inspection Program consists of field offices located in Northern and Southern California and implements a monitoring program to ensure compliance. All vessels are required to submit to compliance inspections, which include sample collection of ballast water and sediment, examination of documents, and any additional appropriate inquiries as needed. The Act specifies that field inspection of ballast water and sediments be conducted from at least 25 percent of arriving vessels, with enforcement administered through the imposition of administrative civil and criminal penalties.

Compliance History under California Marine Invasive Species Act The Refinery’s Marine Terminal lease with the SLC was renewed (for 30 years) in 2001. ConocoPhillips’ current practices at the Marine Terminal are to require shipmasters to fill out ballast water reports within 24-hours of arrival. These reports detail ballast water discharge information. This information is then reported to the SLC by ConocoPhillips as part of its SLC lease requirements. The SLC periodically audits the activities at the Marine Terminal. ConocoPhillips is unaware of any non-compliance issues with the SLC on this reporting.

U.S. Coast Guard Under the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) of 1996, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) was required to establish national voluntary ballast water guidelines. The USCG published regulations on June 14, 2004 establishing a national ballast water management program with mandatory requirements for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks that enter or operate in U.S. waters. The regulations carry mandatory reporting requirements to aid in the USCG’s responsibility, under the NISA, to determine patterns of ballast water movement. The regulations also require ships to maintain and implement vessel-specific ballast water management plans.

Regional Water Quality Control Board The federal Clean Water Act requires that the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States does not violate state water quality standards. Applicants for Section 404 or Section 10 permits must obtain a certification from the state.

Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Act, each of California’s nine regional boards must prepare and periodically update basin plans that set forth water quality standards for surface and groundwater, as well as actions to control nonpoint and point sources of pollution to achieve and maintain these

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-25 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

TABLE 4.3-2 KEY COMPONENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA MARINE INVASIVE SPECIES ACT

For Vessels Coming from Outside the Pacific Coast Region

Mandatory mid-ocean exchange OR retention of all ballast water and associated sediments for all vessels over 300 gross register tons, United States and foreign, carrying ballast water into the waters of the state after operating outside the waters of the state. "mid-ocean exchange" means to replace water in ballast tanks using either "Flow through exchange" or "Empty/refill exchange" with mid-ocean waters (waters that are more than 200 nautical miles from land and at least 2,000 meters deep.)

"Flow through exchange" means overflowing the tank from the top until three volumes of water have been changed.

"Empty/refill exchange" means pump out, until tank is empty or nearly so, and then refilling the tank.

For Vessels Coming from a Port within the Pacific Coast Region

Mandatory near-coast exchange OR retention of all ballast water for all vessels arriving at a California port or place carrying ballast water from another port or place within the Pacific Coast Region. Ports or places in the San Francisco Bay area east of Golden Gate Bridge, including the Ports of Sacramento and Stockton, are considered the same port.

Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and El Segundo Marine Oil Terminal are considered the same port.

"near-coast exchange" means to replace water in tanks using either either "Flow through exchange" or "Empty/refill exchange" with near-coastal waters (waters that are more than 50 nautical miles from land and at least 200 meters deep.)

For All Vessels

Mandatory Completion and Submission of Ballast Water Report Form by vessel master, owner, operator, agent, or person in charge of vessel upon departure from each port of call in California.

Mandatory Compliance with "Good Housekeeping" Practices. Avoid uptake or discharge in or near marine sanctuaries, reserves, parks, or coral reefs Minimize or avoid uptake in the following areas or circumstances: Areas of known infestations or pathogens Near sewage outfalls Near dredging operations Areas with reduced tidal flushing In darkness when bottom-dwelling organisms are active Where propellers may stir up sediment Clean ballast tanks regularly to remove sediment Dispose of sediments in accordance with appropriate laws Minimize discharge amounts Rinse anchors and anchor chains Remove fouling organisms from hull, pipes, etc. Dispose of any removed substance in accordance with laws

Maintain a Ballast Water Management Plan prepared specifically for vessel, describing the procedure for ballast management. It should include safety and exchange procedures.

Maintain Ballast Water Log outlining ballast water management activities for EACH ballast water tank on vessel.

Training of vessel master and crew on ballast water and sediment management and treatment procedures.

SOURCE: California State Lands Commission, 2006d

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-26 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources standards. Basin plans offer an opportunity to achieve wetlands protection based on water quality standards. Water quality for the area including the Refinery is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Region (Basin Plan) The applicable basin plan is the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), last revised in 1995. The RWQCB is responsible for developing and implementing the Basin Plan, which documents approaches to implementing state and federal policies in the context of actual water quality conditions.

The Regional Board’s other activities include permitting of waste discharges, and implementing monitoring programs of pollutant effects. For more information about the State and Regional Board regulations and permits that affect the Proposed Project, see Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Bay Conservation and Development Commission The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) is authorized by the McAteer Petris Act to analyze, plan and regulate San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. It implements the San Francisco Bay Plan, and regulates filling and dredging in the Bay, its sloughs and marshes, certain creek and tributaries. BCDC jurisdiction includes San Pablo Bay and a shoreline band that extends inland 100 feet from the high tide line. BCDC permits would be required for any work within either the Bay or the shoreline band. No work in these areas is proposed as part of the Proposed Project.

Contra Costa County General Plan Policies Contra Costa County set forth a number of natural resource policies in the County’s General Plan (2005) that may be pertinent to the activities in the Proposed Project vicinity. In particular, the General Plan designated Significant Ecological Areas throughout the County and a number of policies that relate to them. A number of these areas occur in general proximity to the Proposed Project area (see Proposed Project Setting above). The goals and policies related to biological resources are summarized as follows:

• To protect ecologically significant lands, wetlands, plant and wildlife habitats.

• To protect rare, threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife and plants, significant plant communities, and other resources which stand out as unique.

• To attempt to achieve a significant net increase in wetland values and functions within the County.

• To encourage the preservation and restoration of the natural characteristics of the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary and adjacent lands.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-27 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

4.3.3 Significance Criteria and Discussion of No Impacts Conclusions regarding the significance of impacts on vegetation and wildlife resources are based on criteria in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). See Section 4.3.2.1, Regulatory Setting for additional discussion of the regulatory controls regarding this Proposed Project.

To determine the level of significance of an identified impact, the criteria outlined in the CEQA Guidelines were used. The following is a discussion of the approaches to, and definitions of, significance of impacts to biological resources, drawn from several distinct sections of the Guidelines.

• CEQA Guidelines (Section 15065) directs lead agencies to find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it has the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species.

• CEQA Guidelines (Section 15206) further specifies that a project shall be deemed to be of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance if it would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats including, but not limited to, riparian lands, wetlands, bays, estuaries, marshes, and habitats for rare and endangered species as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 903.

• CEQA Guidelines (Section 15380) further provides that a plant or animal species, even if not on one of the official lists, may be treated as "rare or endangered" if, for example, it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.

• CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 includes in the definition of Significant Effect on the Environment "…a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project," including flora or fauna.

In addition, CEQA Guidelines Appendix G states that a project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS; b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS; c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-28 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources e) Fundamentally conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or f) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Discussion of Biological Resource No Impacts As noted in the habitat description of the Proposed Project, (see Section 4.3.2.2, Project Setting) the sites of Proposed Project components and adjacent areas are either currently covered with existing Refinery operations or are barren, and are within and surrounded by the Refinery, providing little or no habitat to common or special-status animal and plant species. None of these sites are proximal to wetland or urban habitat and are separated from these habitats by intensive existing Refinery structures and features. Additionally, all of these sites are subject to high and consistent levels of disturbance from ongoing Refinery operations and maintenance and all drainage from these sites and surrounding areas is directed into the Refinery’s stormwater drainage and treatment system. Due to these factors, that the Proposed Project would not:

• Reduce the habitat of, affect the population level of, or reduce the number or restrict the range of, any wildlife or plant species, common or listed; or affect any plant or animal community (other than potential impacts to special-status fish and the San Francisco Bay estuary which are considered below under Section 4.3.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures);

• Substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitat (other than potential impacts to the San Francisco Bay estuary considered below);

• Cause substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change to the flora or fauna within the area (other than potential affects to the San Francisco Bay estuary flora and fauna as addressed below);

• Have a substantial averse effect on any candidate, sensitive, or special-status species (other than potential effects to sensitive and special-status fish species as addressed below);

• Have a substantial adverse affect on any sensitive natural community or protected wetlands (other than potential affects to the Francisco Bay estuary considered below);

• Interfere with any fish or wildlife movement, or with established corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;

• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; or

• Conflict with any adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan or other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

As a result, there would be no impact under these biological resource criteria. The remaining criteria are grouped and discussed under three broad impact statements in Sections 4.3.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and a single impact in Section 4.3.5, Cumulative Impacts.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-29 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

4.3.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures This document addresses three levels of potential impacts on vegetation and wildlife that might result from the implementation of the Proposed Project: construction-related impacts, operation or maintenance related impacts, and biological impacts associated with process accidents and unplanned releases.

Impact 4.3-1: Potential impacts to the San Francisco Bay estuary ecosystem, including special status fisheries, could result from changes in character of Refinery ship traffic of product exports. Sources of potential impacts include introduction of non-indigenous species in ballast water release or through hull fouling. Compliance with the Marine Invasive Species Act and with Coast Guard requirements under the National Invasive Species Act, would minimize risk of introducing non-indigenous species. This impact would be less than significant.

The introduction of exotic species into the San Francisco Bay estuary has had documented pronounced effects on the estuary ecosystem. Introduction of non-indigenous species may occur from ballast water taken up at foreign ports and discharged in the estuary, or by secondary transport of ballast water from already infected domestic ports. Over 230 introduced species have been documented in the estuary, making it one of the most invaded ecosystems in North America (Cohen, 1998). Introduced species have affected all levels of the estuary food chain, including plankton, benthos, fishes, and birds; they have contributed to reductions and extirpations of native species through predation, competition, and introduction of parasites (San Francisco Estuary Project, 1997)

While exotic species introductions occur by a variety of means, transport in ballast water has been the most likely vector in a number of serious invasions. A few examples are as follows: the Asian clam Potamocorbula amurensis believed to have been introduced in ballast water and first observed in the estuary in 1986, has established in large numbers in Suisun Bay. Intensive feeding by this clam has contributed to depletion of phytoplankton populations in the northern estuary, reducing food availability for fish (Cohen and Carlton, 1995; San Francisco Estuary Project, 1997). The clam has been shown to concentrate pollutants such as selenium in its tissues due to its ability to filter large volumes of water (Pereira et al., 1999). Fish and birds that are known to feed on Asian clams may ingest relatively large quantities of these toxins.

Numerous zooplankton species have been introduced to the estuary, with several species appearing to be replacing native species, of particular concern Eurytemora affinis, a native copepod that is a favored food of larval fish. An introduced zooplankton species, Sinocalanus doerri, has been observed to be more difficult to capture by larval fish (CDFG, 1995).

The Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis) was first observed in the estuary in the early 1990’s, with capture totals increasing from 45 to over 20,000 in the Delta, Suisun Bay and Suisun Marsh between 1996 and 1997. Population levels have appeared to peak between 1998 and 2001, and gone into decline in 2002 and 2003 (San Francisco Estuary Project, 1997). Because this species

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-30 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources forms burrows in high densities in steep banks, they have potential to accelerate bank erosion and weaken the structural integrity of levees in the Delta (San Francisco Estuary Project, 1997).

While non-indigenous species have been introduced to the San Francisco Bay estuary by a number of routes (e.g. deliberate fish or oyster introductions, from ship hulls, etc.), introduction through ballast water plays a major role. Between 47 to 77 percent of species first observed in the estuary between 1986 and 1995 were introduced in ballast water (Cohen, 1998). Overall, probably 29 to 43 percent of the non-indigenous fauna and flora of the estuary has been introduced in ballast water (CDFG, 2002b). Current ballast management regulations under the California Marine Invasive Species Act, and Coast Guard ballast management regulations, reduce the risk of non-indigenous species introduction from pre-regulatory levels, but their effectiveness cannot be quantified. Hull fouling, the introduction of non-indigenous species by way of attachment to the hulls of vessels, is a lesser understood mechanism of exotic species introduction, although indications are that it is an important vector (CSLC, 2006c). The proportion of the estuary’s introduced fauna and flora attributable to hull fouling in the past may be between 23 and 37 percent (CDFG, 2002b).

The large reduction in overall marine transport traffic for the Proposed Project, almost a 50 percent reduction in combined barge and vessel trips per year, would reduce the overall exposure of the estuary to organisms transported on vessel and barge hulls. However, an increase in vessel traffic to and from foreign ports could increase the risk of transport of non-indigenous species not already occurring in the estuary. As of March 22, 2006, vessels arriving from ports within the Pacific Coast Region also are subject to the ballast water “exchange” or “retention” requirements of the law, as listed in Table 4.3-2. Because most Refinery-product-related marine shipping is within the Pacific Coast Region, implementation of these regulations would play an important role in decreasing the risk of introducing non-indigenous species into the Bay.

With the Proposed Project, overall biological effects of ballast water associated with marine transport would be expected to be similar to current levels. As discussed on Table 4.3-2, transport vessels are required to follow ballast water exchange or retention regulations to reduce the risks of introduction of non-indigenous species. As a result of continued compliance by transport vessels with these existing regulations, any Proposed Project related impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.

Impact 4.3-2: Potential impacts to special status fisheries could result if additional wastewater or pollutant discharges into San Pablo Bay were to occur. The State Implementation Plan and the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan regulate such discharges through NPDES permits, a principal tool used in protection of aquatic sensitive species and other “beneficial uses” of State water resources. By continued compliance with the

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-31 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources discharge requirements of the Refinery’s NPDES permit this impact would be less than significant.

As discussed in Section 4.9.4 Hydrology and Water Quality, flow rates to the Refinery’s wastewater treatment plant would increase by approximately three percent, from a current average of about 3.3 million gallons per day (MGD) to an estimated 3.4 MGD. This is well within the treatment plant’s 10 MGD total capacity. Although not quantified, it is possible that the pollutant loading in effluent discharge would not increase. The proposed Hydrocracker Unit 246 would include de-metallization catalysts to remove metal constituents as part of the process. These metal constituents would be less likely to be found in process wastewater.

Although not expected, potential increases in the discharge of some pollutants into San Pablo Bay need to be considered. Increases in pollutants in effluent discharge, such as selenium, may directly affect sensitive life stages of aquatic organisms or bioaccumulate and affect higher life forms. An increase in contaminants in the Proposed Project vicinity, in an amount that could adversely affect special status fishes that live near, migrate through or feed on organisms living in the Proposed Project vicinity, would be considered a significant impact.

The special status fishes with potential to occur in Bay waters in the Project Vicinity are Central California Coast Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), Central Valley Steelhead (O. mykiss), Central Valley spring-run, Valley fall/late fall-run, and winter run Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi), Pacific lamprey ( Lampetra tridentata), Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus), and Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys). These fish would have varying susceptibilities to the contaminants potentially increased from the Proposed Project. Different species, and different life stages would have varying sensitivity to increased contaminants in San Pablo Bay because of their use of the area (e.g., spawning or foraging, compared to migration). Generally, the more immature forms, or reproductive processes of adults, are more easily impacted by the kinds of contaminants that are potentially increased from the Proposed Project. Fish eggs and larvae are particularly susceptible to toxins such as heavy metals, organic hydrocarbons, dioxins, and PCBs. Immature forms are also more likely to feed exclusively on organisms exposed predominantly to such contaminants. As such, special status fishes that are found in the Proposed Project vicinity for longer periods of time would be more susceptible to such effects than migratory species such as salmon and steelhead which occur in the Bay only briefly during limited migratory periods. Increases of contaminants in the Refinery’s wastewater discharge as a result of the Proposed Project could potentially increase contaminants in San Pablo Bay by an amount that would potentially adversely affect sensitive aquatic organisms in San Pablo Bay. In that event, impacts to susceptible special status species – i.e., longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, and Delta smelt – could be, following this line of reasoning, considered potentially significant.

The San Francisco Bay Estuary complex receives similar, and a variety of other kinds of, contaminants from a wide variety of sources not limited to industry such as the ConocoPhillips Refinery. Water Quality regulators and fisheries agencies of the area maintain progressive investigations and analysis of these contaminants and their effects on Bay ecology. The

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-32 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources assimilative capacity of the Bay is that amount of contamination that can be processed, diluted, or removed without causing adverse affects on water quality. As such, it can be presumed that any increases in contaminants from the Proposed Project that would cause the assimilative capacity of the Bay to be exceeded could potentially significantly affect sensitive special status species. Conversely, as long as increases in contaminants are determined to not cause this capacity to be exceeded, the increases would not cause adverse effects on aquatic organisms, including sensitive special status fishes as noted above.

The current NPDES permit also includes both numeric toxicity limitations on effluent constituents, set at levels protective of aquatic life, and a narrative toxicity requirement stated as: “[No] toxic or other deleterious substances to be present in concentrations or quantities which would cause deleterious effects on aquatic biota, wildlife, or waterfowl, or which render any of these unfit for human consumption either at levels created in the receiving waters or as a result of biological concentrations.” To implement this requirement, the NPDES permit for the ConocoPhillips Refinery’s effluent requires acute and chronic toxicity bioassays for the discharges into the Bay. The bioassays routinely determine the level of harm to these specimens representative of the fishes in the Bay. Acute toxicity bioassays use rainbow trout. Chronic toxicity bioassays involve a screening phase required in response to significant changes in the nature of the effluent and for NPDES permit reissuance. The screening phase involves bioassays using an algae, invertebrate, and fish species representative of the estuary, followed by a monitoring phase using the most sensitive species identified in the screening phase. This species was identified as the shrimp Americamysis bahia during screening for the previous NPDES permit; this species is the approved test species for the current NPDES permit. As long as the effluent does not cause death in the experimental populations above a specified level, the effluent is in compliance and is determined unlikely to significantly impact representative organisms in the aquatic environment. Therefore, as long as the additional effluent, as proposed, does not violate this standard or the numeric limits, this impact is considered to be less than significant. Bioassay monitoring results between 2001 to 2004 for both acute and chronic toxicity were consistently within permit compliance levels.

As described in the NPDES permit, San Pablo Bay is considered “impaired” for certain pollutants. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL’s) for San Pablo Bay are to be determined by the Regional Water Quality Control Board by 2010. See Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, for further detail and interim policies. For purposes of CEQA, the existing condition of the Bay constitutes the “baseline” or background condition against which potential project impacts must be analyzed. The State Water Resources Control Board’s list of impaired water bodies indicates that the impairment of San Pablo Bay is primarily due to nonpoint and historic sources. The only listed pollutant which is attributed in part to industrial point sources is selenium. However, selenium discharges from refineries (including the ConocoPhillips Refinery) are restricted by an Individual Control Strategy established under the Clean Water Act. ConocoPhillips has already made significant reductions in its selenium discharges by installing the Selenium Removal Plant (SRP) in 1998.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-33 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

To ensure the protection of aquatic life, ConocoPhillips’ discharge must meet concentration, mass and toxicity limits required by its NPDES permit for pollutants that could pose toxicity to aquatic life. As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the discharge is expected to remain within the current NPDES permit limits. If these NPDES permit conditions continue to be met, the levels of contaminants resulting from the Proposed Project should not have a significant effect on the more susceptible special status fishes and the concentration of pollutants discharged should not increase. Further, in order to strictly limit the mass of pollutants discharged, the RWQCB may require ConocoPhillips to conduct and submit an antidegradation assessment and report as detailed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

The impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.

Impact 4.3-3: Product export ship and barge traffic has a small but present potential to result in accidental releases of toxic materials in San Pablo Bay that may affect the waters there, as well as in the Carquinez Strait and nearby wetlands. Organisms inhabiting aquatic and marsh habitat could be adversely affected by such releases. Net volume of product export would decrease slightly with Proposed Project implementation, thus, the Proposed Project would, at minimum, not increase risk of this impact from current levels. This potential impact would be further reduced by the Refinery’s current Oil Spill Contingency and Response Plan, a measure required by law.

The transfer of products from the Refinery has the potential to result in accidental releases of toxic substances into the waters of San Pablo Bay. Such substances could affect aquatic biota, as well as organisms inhabiting the nearby shoreline and marshes. Depending on the time of year and day, tidal currents could transport toxics eastward through the Carquinez Strait and the sensitive habitats found in Suisun Bay and Marsh or northeasterly across San Pablo Bay to the National Wildlife Refuge, or westward/ southward into San Francisco Bay.

The Oil Spill Contingency and Response Plan, a part of the ConocoPhillips Facility Response Plan, implements statutory requirements of the Federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The Plan was designed to meet U.S. Coast Guard requirements, as well as the US EPA’s Oil Pollution Prevention requirements. The Plan outlines emergency response procedures to be implemented by trained Refinery personnel. An element of the Plan assigns priority to actions that would protect sensitive biological resources from significant releases. The Refinery maintains work boats, absorbent materials, and booms at the Marine terminal and can initiate emergency responses within 10 minutes of an accident. If the spill is too large to be handled by Refinery crews, then the Clean Bay organization is notified. Clean Bay is an industrial cooperative supported by all of the refineries in the San Francisco Bay Area. Clean Bay actively partners with the US Coast Guard, California Office of Spill Prevention & Response and other important organizations during spill responses. The organization is available 24 hours a day and committed to responding to spills within one hour or less.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-34 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

All spill clean up should be carried out under the supervision of CDFG and USFWS biologists to ensure that methods potentially destructive to habitat or organisms are not used. If damage to habitat or organisms occurs, documentation of such damage should occur as soon as possible to facilitate restoration planning and to aid in determination of compensation. A plan for spill response studies should be determined beforehand in consultation with CDFG and USFWS, which would include study methods and sampling design, as well as contacts for carrying out such studies.

Product export by marine transport, after implementation of the Proposed Project, is projected to decrease from a current level of approximately 46,982 bbl/day (barrels/day) to approximately 43,944 bbl/day, a decrease of approximately 3,038 bbl/day, or 6 percent of pre-project levels. Because of reduced volume of marine shipments, the Proposed Project may slightly reduce the risk of accidental release of toxic substances or, at least maintain the risk at pre-project levels. Given that there would be no increase in risk of this impact, and a plan in place to respond to release of toxic substances, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.

4.3.5 Cumulative Impacts

Impact 4.3-4: Impacts to the San Francisco Bay estuary ecosystem, including special status fisheries, could result from changes in cumulative ship traffic that could introduce non- indigenous species in ballast water release or through hull fouling, or from additional pollutant discharges from other non-refinery industrial projects, together with cumulative refinery projects. Compliance with the Marine Invasive Species Act, and with Coast Guard requirements under the National Invasive Species Act, would minimize risk of introducing non-indigenous species and continued compliance with the discharge requirements of the Refinery’s NPDES permit would reduce pollutant discharges. This impact would be less than significant.

The San Francisco Bay and Delta is a major destination for marine vessels that visit the many ports and marine terminals annually. As discussed on Impact 4.3-1, all major transport vessels are required to follow ballast water exchange or retention regulations to reduce the risks of introduction of non-indigenous species to the San Francisco Bay and Delta. With the Proposed Project, overall biological effects of ballast water associated with marine transport would be expected to be similar to current levels and the related impact of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. The same ballast water exchange or retention regulations apply to all marine terminals in the region and to all marine vessels similar to those visiting the Refinery. Given the magnitude of all of the existing ship traffic in the Bay, and the fact that the effects of the Proposed Project would be similar to current levels, the contribution of the Proposed Project to the cumulative effect would not be considerable. The related impact of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-35 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

The additional wastewater associated with other non-refinery projects, especially industrial development, together with Refinery discharges, could increase the mass of pollutants in receiving waters. Those increased levels of pollutants may directly affect sensitive life stages or bioaccumulate and affect higher life forms, such as special status fishes that live near or would feed on organisms living in the vicinity.

Although potential increases in pollutants from the cumulative discharges could occur, the Refinery’s contribution to these impacts would be maintained at a level that is less than cumulatively considerable by compliance with the discharge requirements of the Refinery’s NPDES permit. As discussed in Impact 4.3-2, above, the NPDES permitting process provides discharge standards that, when followed, limit this impact to less than significant. Although the existing condition of San Pablo Bay is considered “impaired” by certain pollutants, as discussed above the impairment is primarily due to nonpoint and historic sources, and selenium discharges from refineries are restricted by an Individual Control Strategy. Accordingly, the potential contribution of these pollutants as a result of the Proposed Project, together with other industrial development projects, is not considered a cumulatively significant biological impact. See also the discussion in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Mitigation: None required.

References – Biological Resources California Department of Fish and Game, 1995. Fish Species of Special Concern in California, Longfin Smelt. Available online at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/ssc/sscfish/ sscfish.shtml.

California Department of Fish and Game. California Wildlife Interagency Task Group. 2002a. California wildlife habitat relationships system, Version 8.0 personal computer program. Sacramento, CA. Available online at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/html/cwhr.html.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2002b. A Survey of Non-indigenous Aquatic Species in the Coastal and Estuarine Waters of California. Submitted to the California Legislature as Required by the Ballast Management Act of 1999.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database. September 2003 Edition. Available online at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/pdfs/natcomlist.pdf.

California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Database, version 3.0.5, updated April 29, 2006. Data request for the Benicia and Mare Island USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles and for Contra Costa County.

California Native Plant Society, Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, 2006. Data request for the Benicia and Mare Island USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles and for Contra Costa County.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-36 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

California State Lands Commission. 2006c. Commercial Vessel Fouling in California: Analysis, Evaluation, and Recommendations to Reduce Nonindigenous Species Release from the Non-Ballast Water Vector. Produced for the California State Legislature. April, 2006.

California State Lands Commission. 2006d. California’s Marine Invasive Species Act, Key Components of the Law. Web page PDF accessed November 2006. Available online at http://www.slc.ca.gov/Division_Pages/MFD/MFD_Programs/Ballast_Water/Documents/K eyCompAB433Rvs2MBF.pdf.

Camp, Dresser, and McKee. 2000. San Pablo Bay Watershed Restoration Framework Program. Prepared in association with The Bay Institute of San Francisco for the Coastal Conservancy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final Report November 2000. 285 p. Available online: http://144.3.144.213/program/SanPabloReport.pdf.

Cohan, A.N. 1998. Ship’s Ballast Water and the Introduction of Exotic Organisms into San Francisco Estuary; Current Status of the Problem and Options for Management. A report for the CALFED Category III Steering Committee Administered by the California Urban Water Agencies.

Cohen, A.N., and J.T. Carlton. 1995. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in a United States Estuary: A Case Study of the Biological Invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta, University of California at Berkeley, Williams College-Mystic Seaport.

Contra Costa County. 1994. Environmental Impact Report for the Unocal Corporation Reformulated Gasoline Project. June 1994.

Contra Costa County. 2003. ConocoPhillips ULSD/Strategic Modernization Project Draft EIR. May, 2003.

Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005 - 2020. January, 2005.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). July 1, 2004. Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material/Definitions. Federal Register 40CFR 230.3[s].

Garth JS, Tilden JW. 1986. California Butterflies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [California natural history guides; 51].

Hickman JC, ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual:Higher Plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Jameson EW, jr. 1988. California Mammals. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [California natural history guides; 52].

Moyle, PB. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2001. Status Review Update for Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) from the Central California Coast and the California portion of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Units. Prepared by the Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz Laboratory, April 12. Available online: http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/news/Coho_status_2001.pdf.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-37 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources

Nur, N, Spautz H, Chan, Y. 2002. Tidal Marsh Song Sparrows of San Francisco Bay. Observer: Quarterly Journal of PRBO Conservation Science, Number 128, Spring 2002.

Page, LM, Burr, BM. 1991. A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. 432 p. [Peterson’s field guide series; 42].

Pereira, W.E., F.D. Hostettler, and T.L. Wade. 1999. Butyltin Contamination in Sediments and Lipid Tissues of the Asian Clam, Potamocorbula amurensis, near Mare Island Naval Shipyard, San Francisco Bay. In U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program Proceedings Vol. 2 Contamination of Hydrologic Systems and Related Ecosystems: U.S.G.S. WRI Report 99-4010 B: 41-50.

Peterson, RT. 1990. Western Birds. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. [Peterson’s field guide series; 4].

San Francisco Estuary Project. 1997. State of the Estuary 1992-1997. San Francisco Estuary Institute.

Stebbins, RC. 1985. Western Reptiles and Amphibians. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. [Peterson’s field guide series; 16].

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. July 1, 2002. Definition of Waters of the United States/Definitions. Federal Register 33 CFR 328.3.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Feb, 16, 2000. Final Rule: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Critical Habitat Determination for 19 Evolutionarily Significant Units of Salmon and Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Federal Register 65 FR 7764 7787. Available Online: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/index.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Species List for ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Project, Contra Costa County, California, March 22, 2006.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.3-38 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources

• Demolition activities, construction and operation of the Proposed Project would have no impact on historical resources, because there are no existing prehistoric or historic resources identified within the Proposed Project area. • Excavation and other ground disturbances that would occur during construction of the Proposed Project could affect currently unknown or unidentified archaeological resources or paleontological remains, with the potential to result in significant impacts. However, potential impacts related to construction activities would be reduced to less than significant by standard mitigation measures and regulatory controls. • Excavation and other ground disturbances that would occur during construction of the Proposed Project could affect currently unknown or unidentified human remains, with the potential to result in significant impacts. However, potential impacts related to construction activities would be reduced to less than significant by standard mitigation measures and regulatory controls. • The Proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative cultural resources impacts. This would be a less- than-significant impact.

4.4.1 Introduction This section includes a general discussion of the potential archaeological and cultural resources at the Proposed Project site. The regulatory setting, potential impacts, and subsequent mitigation measures associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed Project are then described.

4.4.2 Setting

4.4.2.1 Regional Setting In Contra Costa County, the eastern bank of the San Pablo Bay at the mouth of the Carquinez Straits represents the entry point for the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers into the San Francisco Bay. This locality lies within the west end of the Central Valley archaeological regions, both of which contain a rich array of prehistoric and historical cultural resources.

The initial historic contact with the County area occurred during the Portola expedition while in search of Point Reyes in 1769. The name “Contra Costa” for the County derived from this expedition when a member of the group made reference to a timber site on the coast across the bay as “madera en la contra costa” or timber on the opposite coast. In 1772, a Spanish expedition explored the surrounding areas of the County and nearby Mt. Diablo in search of mission sites. While no mission was established, the Spanish ruled the area until 1821 when the Mexican Revolution ushered in the period of Mexican rule. Following the end of the Mexican-American

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.4-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources

War in 1848, California was admitted to the Union in 1850 and the County was incorporated as one of the original 27 counties in the state with the City of Martinez as the County seat. (Fredrickson, D.A., 1973).

Ethnographic Setting The natural marshland biotic communities along the edges of bays and channels were the principal source for subsistence and other activities during the prehistory of the Bay Area. Many of the original surveys of archaeological sites in the Bay Area conducted between 1906 and 1908 by N.C. Nelson yielded the initial documentation of nearly 425 “earth mounds and shell heaps” (also known as middens1) along the littoral zone of the Bay (Nelson, 1907). The most notable sites, such as the Emeryville shellmound (ALA-309), the Ellis Landing Site (CCO-295) in Richmond, and the Fernandez Site (CCO-259) in Rodeo Valley (Morrato, 1984), were scientifically excavated. These dense midden sites, such as Ala-309, are 2310 ± 220 years old, but other evidence from around the Bay Area suggests that human occupation in the region is of greater antiquity, ±5000 B.C. (Davis and Treganza, 1959 as cited in Moratto, 1984). Many of the earliest sites suggested less emphasis on shellfish than the later middens that focused on hunting and vegetal food processing.

As of 2000 B.C, however, the bayshore and marsh-adapted peoples began appearing in the archaeological record. The so-called Berkeley Pattern (2000 B.C. to A.D. 300) reflected a change in socioeconomic complexity and settlement patterns (Fredrickson, 1973). This artifact pattern was represented by minimally shaped cobble mortar and pestle, dart and atlatl2, and bone industry.

Given the size of these settlements, it is probable that the populations were denser and more sedentary than expected, yet continued to exploit a diverse resource base—from woodland to grassland and marshland to bayshore resources throughout the Bay Area (Bickel, 1978; King, 1974 as cited in Moratto, 1984). Many of the Berkeley traits diffused throughout the region and spread to the interior areas of central California during this time period.

Much of the artifactual remains attributed to the Berkeley Pattern have been linked to the ancestral Plains or Bay Miwok, a culture that began to spread from the Bay Area to the interior of central California, especially the lower Sacramento Valley. It has been posited that the proto- Miwok territory likely occupied the area north of Suisun Bay during this period; however, this area was later relinquished to the Patwin (Bennyhoff, 1977 as cited in Morratto, 1984).

Prior to Euro-American contact, the land of the present-day County was occupied by three tribes: the Bay Miwoks, the Yokuts, and the Ohlone (also known as the Costanoans). Within each of these tribes, smaller groups called tribelets existed. Tribelets ranged in size from 40 to 200 members. Each tribelet lived within its own territory. The territories for each tribelet were usually

1 Any large refuse heap, mound, or concentration of cultural debris associated with human occupation. 2 A New World version of a spear-throwing device, used by the Aztecs and other peoples of the Americas. It consisted of a wooden shaft used to propel a spear or dart and it functioned like an extension of the arm, providing more thrusting leverage.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.4-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources divided at the tops of ridges or other physiographic features and were only crossed for trading and celebrations. The Karkin triblet, or Los Carquines, likely inhabited the area of present-day Rodeo.

The Ohlone or Costanoan consisted of eight subgroups that together inhabited most of the Bay Area except the northwestern side of the San Pablo Bay. In spite of having a common language base, the subgroups were not bound together in any political sense; they did not have a single term or word in their language by which they referred to themselves as a whole. Europeans referred to them as Costanos or “people of the coast” from which the name “Costanoan” was derived (Levy, 1978).

4.4.2.2 Project Setting The Refinery has been continuously operating at its present site since it was originally built by Union Oil Company in February 1896. The Refinery was the first major oil refinery in the Bay Area, and the original site occupied 22 acres and processed 1,600 barrels of crude oil per day. The west section of the Refinery, located west of San Pablo Avenue, includes a marine terminal, butane storage, railcar loading, crude oil and product storage, hydrogen plant Unit 110, a cogeneration steam/power plant, shop areas, warehouse, laboratory, and administration buildings. Construction in this area ranges from 1940 to 1994. The East Refinery/Tormey Hill area is located east of San Pablo Avenue, and contains the Refinery’s major petroleum units. Construction in this area ranges from 1940 to present. This area also has a number of decommissioned units including Unit 210, Unit 212, and Unit 220.

Survey Findings A reconnaissance survey of the facility was conducted to provide a general impression of the area’s cultural resource potential or sensitivity. In light of the highly disturbed surface and level of industrialization, the effectiveness of a field survey was diminished. No indications of cultural features (for example, consolidated deposits of shell) were observed on the Proposed Project site. However, this lack of indications does not preclude the existence of subsurface materials of archaeological interest on the site and in its vicinity.

Archival Findings A records search of all pertinent survey and site data was conducted at the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University on January 21, 2003. The records were accessed by utilizing the Mare Island and Benicia USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map, unsectioned, Township 2N, Range 3W. The review included the boundaries of the Refinery site along with a 1/4-mile radius that constituted the Proposed Project area. The area of potential effect for the Proposed Project would consist of the area encompassing the proposed Refinery alterations as well as a 600-foot buffer given the Proposed Project’s limited construction footprint and lack of obtrusiveness. Previous surveys, studies, and archaeological site records were reviewed as they pertained to the Proposed Project site. Records were reviewed in the Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Contra Costa County for information on sites of recognized historical significance. Properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.4-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources of Historic Resources, the California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976), the California Historical Landmarks (1996), and the California Points of Historical Interest (1992) were also searched for the area.

As described in Table 4.4-1, previous archaeological surveys in the Proposed Project area have not resulted in the identification of cultural resources. Some shell midden have been recorded as badly impacted at the base of the hills in lower Tormey, which may have been constituents of an earlier recorded site (CA-CCO-257) (Bard, 1979; Nelson, 1907). The Selby Smelter, previously located just north of the Proposed Project area, is no longer present.

TABLE 4.4-1 IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RESOURCES AND SURVEYS CONDUCTED WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA

Site Designation Location Age Description Comments Reference

CA-CCO-257 Davis Point Prehistoric Shellmound site Poorly recorded site; highly Nelson (1907) disturbed 07-001131 Parker Ave. Historic (ca Selby Smelter Not evaluated for NR; listed CAL/OHP 1976 1885) Site in Cal. Inventory S-21519 Wickland Oil No cultural Pedestrian Test excavations yielded no Basin Research Co. material Survey cultural remains Assoc. (1999) S-4950 Multiple; Int- No cultural Pedestrian High occupancy vehicle lane Buss, M. 80 material Survey project S-17776 Carquinez No cultural Pedestrian Garaventa, D.M et Bridge material Survey al. S-22817 Multiple No cultural Pedestrian Level (3) long haul fiber optic Nelson, W. J. et al. material Survey project S-13961 Multiple No cultural Pedestrian Richmond to Concord Pipeline McIvers, K.J. material Survey Project S-23070 Selby No cultural Pedestrian Busby, Colin Industrial material Survey Site

SOURCE: Northwest Information Center, 2003.

The site is in the California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976), and it is also a Contra Costa County Historical Point of Interest (CCCoHS, 1994). Neither of these resources are within the Refinery site and would therefore, not be affected by the Proposed Project. No additional recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological resources occur within the Proposed Project area or Refinery.

4.4.2.3 Regulatory Setting

Contra Costa County General Plan The Contra Costa County General Plan contains goals and policies that could be applicable to the Proposed Project. These goals and policies are summarized as follows:

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.4-4 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources

• To identify and preserve important archaeological and historic resources within the County. • To preserve areas with identifiable and important archaeological or historic significance. • To protect buildings or structures that have visual merit and historic value.

(Contra Costa County, 2005)

State of California

California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that public or private projects financed or approved by public agencies must assess the effects of the project on historical resources. CEQA also applies to effects on archaeological sites, which may be included among “historical resources” as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, subdivision (a), or may be subject to the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, which governs review of “unique archaeological resources.” Historical resources may generally include buildings, sites, structures, objects, or districts, each of which may have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific significance.

Under CEQA, “historical resources” include the following:

• A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1).

• A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, will be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.

• Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource will be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1), including the following:

- Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; - Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; - Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or - Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.4-5 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources

• The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

California Public Resources Code Archaeological resources that are not “historical resources” according to the above definitions may be “unique archaeological resources” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, which also generally provides that “non-unique archaeological resources” do not receive any protection under CEQA. Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 (g) states that “unique archaeological resource” means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the criteria that this section identifies. If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor a historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources will not be considered a significant effect on the environment. It is sufficient that the resource and the effects on it be noted in the EIR, but the resource need not be considered further in the CEQA process.

Additional sections of the California Public Resource Code that are applicable to the Proposed Project are as follows:

• Title 14, Public Resources Code, Section 5097.5 – any unauthorized removal or destruction of archaeological, paleontological resources on sites located on public lands is a misdemeanor.

• Title 14, Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98 – prohibits obtaining or possessing Native American artifacts or human remains taken from a grave or cairn; sets penalties.

• Public Resources Code, Section 5097.5. Any unauthorized removal of archaeological resources on sites located on public lands is a misdemeanor. As used in this section, “public lands” means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority or public corporation, or any agency thereof.

California Health and Safety Code The Proposed Project is also subject to the provisions of the California Health and Safety Code with respect to the discovery of human remains. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that “Every person who knowingly mutilates or disinters, wantonly disturbs, or willfully removes any human remains in or from any location other than a dedicated cemetery without authority of law is guilty of a misdemeanor, except as provided in Section 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code”.

The measures outlined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code are considered standard mitigation measures implemented in the event

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.4-6 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources of an accidental discovery of human remains during excavation activities. These measures are provided in Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 below.

4.4.3 Significance Criteria and Discussion of No Impacts

Significance Criteria Based on section 15064.5 and CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, a project would have significant adverse impacts to cultural resources if it would: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5; b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5; c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3), in general, a resource shall be considered “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (Public Resources Code SS5024.1 Title CCR, Section 4852). This section also provides standards for determining what constitutes a “substantial adverse change” that must be considered a significant impact on historical resources.

In addition, a resource included on a local register of historical resources, as defined by Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(g), shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant.

Discussion of No Historical Resource Impacts Review and comparison of the setting circumstances and Proposed Project characteristics with each of the four significance criteria stated above, clearly show that no cultural resource impacts would result for the first criterion. The following discusses the reasoning supporting this conclusion: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. There are no historic resources as defined in Section 15064.5 located on the project site.

The site of the proposed facilities has been a developed part of the refinery for decades. There are no historic structures located at the site and the ground surface has been extensively disturbed as a result of past refinery activities. The infrastructure of the refinery

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.4-7 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources

is highly industrialized and thus retains no architectural distinction, nor do the physical structures of the refinery appear to be associated with significant events or persons in California’s history. Therefore, the development of the proposed facilities would not directly or indirectly result to a change in any historic resources as defined in Section 15064.5. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not require the removal of historical structures or related demolition activities. As a result, there would be no impact to historical resources due to Proposed Project implementation.

Mitigation: None required.

4.4.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Construction of the new facilities and modification of existing facilities would result in physical changes at the Refinery. Implementation of the Proposed Project would include grading and excavation activities that could potentially adversely impact cultural and paleontological resources. Mitigation measures and standard regulatory controls would reduce any potential impacts to these resources to a less-than-significant level.

Impact 4.4-1: Although there are no known archaeological resources located at the site and the ground surface has been extensively disturbed as a result of past refinery activities, construction of the Proposed Project could result in adverse impacts to undiscovered archeological resources. This would be a less-than-significant impact with Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 incorporated.

The Proposed Project site has been a developed part of the Refinery for decades and no archaeological resources have been identified on the site as indicated in Table 4.4-1. However, because archaeological sites can consist of considerable subsurface components that are, at times, not evident at the surface, the lack of surface deposits at the site does not preclude the existence of subsurface archaeological resources (Busby, 1999; McIvers, 1992). The operation of the Proposed Project would not result in activities that could degrade unknown resources because no excavation or soil disturbance would be necessary. However, if, buried archaeological resources exist on the site, grading and other construction related activities could cause significant impacts to these undiscovered resources. As a result, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 is necessary.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-1: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f), “provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction” shall be instituted. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and ConocoPhillips shall consult with the County and a qualified archaeologist (as approved by the County) to assess the significance of the find per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the County and the qualified archaeologist would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the County would determine

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.4-8 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources

whether avoidance is feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) would be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be, at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documented according to current professional standards.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact 4.4-2: Although there are no known paleontological remains located at the site and the ground surface has been extensively disturbed as a result of past refinery activities. Even so, construction of the Proposed Project could result in adverse impacts to undiscovered paleontological resources. This impact would be a less-than-significant impact with Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 incorporated.

The upper most strata of the Refinery area contain Briones Sandstone formation atop San Ramon Sandstone, both of Miocene age (25 to 5 Million years ago). The youngest layer, or the Briones Sandstone formation, contains sandstone, siltstone, conglomerate and shell breccia, or broken shell material. Paleontological analysis has not, as of yet, revealed any significant fossil deposition in this area of the Briones Formation (USGS, 2002). Because significant fossil discoveries can be made even in areas designated as having low potential, construction related excavation activities related to the Proposed Project could result in adverse impacts to undiscovered paleontological resources. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2. Operation of the Proposed Project would not require and activities that could expose paleontological resources and would not result in an impact to these resources.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-2: ConocoPhillips shall notify both a qualified paleontologist (as approved by the County) and the County of unanticipated discoveries. The qualified paleontologist, under contract to ConocoPhillips, shall subsequently document the discovery. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of a fossil or fossilized deposit during construction, excavations within 100 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted until a qualified paleontologist examines the discovery. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. The paleontologist shall oversee implementation of these procedures once they have been determined.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact 4.4-3: There are no known human remains or burials located at the Proposed Project sites. Although the ground surface has been extensively disturbed as a result of past Refinery activities, construction of the Proposed Project could result in adverse impacts to

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.4-9 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources undiscovered human remains or burials. This would be a less-than-significant impact with Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 incorporated.

There are no records or indication that human remains have been encountered during past construction activities at the refinery site. No lengthy prehistoric occupation of the refinery site has been documented, nor have surveys revealed that human remains may occur at the site. However, this does not conclusively demonstrate the nonexistence of subsurface cultural resources at the Proposed Project site. While operation of the Proposed Project would not involve any activities that would have the potential to expose human remains, if buried undiscovered human remains exist on the Proposed Project sites, grading and other construction related activities could cause significant impacts to those burials. As a result, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 is necessary.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-3: In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface human remains are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and ConocoPhillips shall consult with the County and a qualified archaeologist (as approved by the County) to assess the significance of the find per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the County and the qualified archaeologist would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the County would determine whether avoidance is feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) would be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation is carried out. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be, at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documented according to current professional standards. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)(1), below, shall also be followed:

(e) In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps should be taken:

(1) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:

(A) The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and

(B) If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:

1. The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours;

2. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American;

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.4-10 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources

3. The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; or

(2) Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:

(B) The identified descendant fails to make a recommendation; or

(C) The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.4.5 Cumulative Impacts

Impact 4.4-4: The Proposed Project, together with proposed and planned future development at the Proposed Project site and in the surrounding area, would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative cultural resources impacts. This would be a less-than-significant cumulative impact.

All potential impacts of the Proposed Project are direct impacts related to the Refinery site. Because the Proposed Project would not affect known significant cultural resources, it would not be likely to cause or contribute to significant cumulative impacts. While the incremental loss of cultural resources over time has and does occur from both natural and human-caused activities, the combined effects of the implementation of both County and State level regulations that requires identification and evaluation of cultural resources as part of environmental review effectively reduces the cumulative impacts that would occur to cultural resources.

Because this uniform policy is designed to reduce direct impacts on cultural resources to a less- than-significant level on a site-specific basis, the Proposed Project would not make a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative cultural resources impact in the region.

Mitigation: None required.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.4-11 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources

References – Cultural Resources Bard, J.C., 1979. An Archaeological and Historical Assessment of the Proposed Wickland Oil Company Tank Farm and other developments, Tormey Village, Contra Costa County, California, on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, [file #1646], 1979.

Bickel, P.M., 1978. Changing sea levels along the California Coast: anthropological implications, Journal of California Archaeology 5(1): 6-20, 1978.

Busby, C.I., 1999. Cultural Resources Evaluation/ Archaeological Reconnaissance Report, Selby Industrial Site, Wichland Oil Company, on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, [File # 21519], 1999.

California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation, 1976. California Inventory of Historic Resources, Resources Agency, California State Parks, Sacramento, 1976.

California Department of Parks and Recreation, Archaeological Record S-001198 in Contra Costa County. Various dates.

Contra Costa County, 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), January 2005.

Contra Costa County Historical Society (CCCoHS), 1994. Contra Costa County Map of Historical Points of Interest, 1994.

Davis, J.T., and A.E., Treganza, 1959. The Patterson Mound: A Comparative Analysis of the Archaeology of Site Ala-328, Berkeley: University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 47: 1-92, 1959.

Fredrickson, D.A., 1973. Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Ph.D, dissertation, Davis: Department of Anthropology, University of California, 1973.

King, T.F., 1974. The evolution of status ascription around San Francisco Bay. Antap: California Indian Political and Economic Organization, Eds Bean, L.J. and King, T.F. Bellena Press Anthropological Papers, 2: 35-54, 1974.

Levy, R., 1978. Costanoan Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 8, Ed by Heizer, R.F, pp. 485-495, Smithsonian Institution: Washington, D.C., 1978.

McIvers, K.J., 1992. An Archaeological Survey of the Richmond to Concord Pipeline Project, L.S. 80, On File at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, [file # 13961], 1992.

Moratto, M.J., 1984. San Francisco Bay and Central Coast Region, In California Archaeology. Ed. Griffin, J.B, Academic Press, Inc.: San Diego, 1984.

Nelson, N.C., 1907. San Francisco Bay Mounds, University of California Archaeological Survey Manuscripts: 349, 1907.

Redman, C.L., 1999. Human Impact on Ancient Environments, The University of Arizona Press: Tucson, Arizona, 1999.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.4-12 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2002. Paleontology in the San Francisco Bay Region, available online at http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/wgmt/sfbay, updated March 19, 2002.

Williams, G.W., 2001. References on the American Indian Use of Fire in Ecosystems, available online at http://www.wildlandfire.com/docs/biblio_indianfire.htm, May 18, 2001.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.4-13 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy

Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would increase consumption of electrical energy beyond current levels. However, the Proposed project would increase the amount of electricity and CARB approved fuels, such as gasoline and diesel, produced by the Refinery. For operation, approximately half of the increase in the electrical energy use would be provided by the electricity generated by the Proposed Project. ConocoPhillips is now and will remain a net exporter of electricity. • The existing energy supply is adequate for construction of the Proposed Project. • Proposed Project operations would increase peak electrical use by approximately 19.8 MW (6.2 MW for operation of the new Hydrogen Plant and 13.6 MW for new Refinery process operations). • The steam turbine generator at the Hydrogen Plant would produce about 10 MW of electricity, which would exceed the 6.2 MW of electrical demand of the new Hydrogen Plant resulting in a 3.8 MW supply to the Refinery. • Proposed Project operations would require purchase of an additional 9.8 MW of electrical power, which would be supplied by PG&E. • The Proposed Project would require installation of a new electrical substation on-site. • No new external electrical transmission lines or natural gas pipelines would be required to deliver natural gas and electricity to the Refinery. The impacts to energy resources are less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required.

4.5.1 Introduction This section addresses energy in terms of the changes in electricity, natural gas, and petroleum fuel generation and consumption that could result from implementation of the Proposed Project This section identifies the state and regional energy supplies, consumption patterns, and the Proposed Project’s potential impacts on local and regional energy supplies.

4.5.2 Setting

4.5.2.1 State and Regional Setting

Energy Production and Distribution California has a diverse energy system that provides 15% of the natural gas, 37% of the petroleum, and 78% of the electricity to the State’s energy supply. The rest of the State’s energy is imported and includes: natural gas purchases from Canada (23%), the Rocky Mountain States

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.5-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Energy and the Southwest (62%); crude oil imported from Alaska (21%) and foreign sources (42%); and electricity from the Pacific Northwest (7%) and the Southwest (15%).

Among the states, California ranks third in the nation in production of crude oil, eleventh in production of natural gas, third in generation of hydroelectric power, and sixth in nuclear electricity generation (California Energy Commission, 2006a).

California’s oil fields comprise the fourth-largest petroleum producing area in the United States, behind Federal Offshore production, Texas, and Alaska. Crude oil is delivered to different regions within California through a network of pipelines that carry it from both onshore and offshore oil wells to the refineries that are located in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles area, and the Central Valley. Currently, 21 petroleum refineries operate in California, processing approximately 1.9 million barrels1 per day of crude oil. (California Energy Commission, 2005)

Because demand in California exceeds the supply, crude oil and refined products must be imported from other producing areas. By 2015, imports of clean gasoline, diesel and jet fuel are expected to grow between 2 billion and 4 billion gallons per year, with crude oil imports estimated to grow to 75 million barrels per year. By 2025, crude imports will continue growing by another 140 million barrels per year, to over 500 million barrels annually, with gasoline, diesel and jet fuel imports also growing dramatically, by between 3 billion and 5.8 billion gallons per year. That, in turn, will lead to twice as many petroleum vessel movements and will necessitate additional docks, terminals, pipelines and storage tanks to support them. (Western States Petroleum Association, 2005).

Transportation Fuels Most petroleum fuel produced in California is for use in on-road motor vehicles and is refined within California to meet state-specific formulations required by the California Air Resources Board. The major categories of petroleum fuels are gasoline and diesel for passenger vehicles, transit, and rail vehicles; and fuel oil for industry and electrical power generation. Other liquid fuels include jet fuel and residual fuel oil for marine vessels.

Other transportation fuel sources are alternative fuels, such as methanol and denatured ethanol (alcohol mixtures that contain no less than 70% of the alcohol fuel), natural gas (compressed or liquefied), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), hydrogen, and fuels derived from biological materials (i.e., biomass).

Electricity and Natural Gas The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of other energy resources, including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear. Of the electricity generated in-State, 57% is generated by fossil fuel-fired power plants and 15% by nuclear power plants. Nearly 28% of the in-State total electricity production is supplied by renewable sources, including large hydroelectric generation (17%), biomass (2%), geothermal (5%), small hydroelectric (2%),

1 For crude oil, as for other petroleum products, one barrel contains 42 gallons.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.5-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Energy solar (0.2%) and wind (1.5%) (California Energy Commission, 2006a). The largest portion of California’s electricity market, natural gas-fired power plants in California, meets approximately 37% of the in-State electricity demand (California Energy Commission, 2006b).

Natural gas is widely used for industrial and commercial applications and for residential heating applications. Most of the natural gas consumed in California comes from the Southwest, the Rocky Mountains, and Canada, while the remainder is produced in California. Although contractually California can receive natural gas from any producing region in North America, it can only take supplies from the three producing regions due to the current pipeline configuration.

For Contra Costa County, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is the primary supplier of electricity and natural gas to businesses and residents. PG&E’s service area extends from Eureka to Bakersfield (north to south), and from the Sierra Nevada to the Pacific Ocean (east to west). PG&E obtains its energy supplies from power plants and natural gas fields in northern California and from energy purchased outside its service area and delivered through high voltage transmission lines and pipelines.

State and Regional Energy Consumption With a relatively mild Mediterranean climate and strict energy efficiency and conservation requirements, California has lower energy consumption rates than other parts of the country. California has the lowest annual electrical consumption rate per person, at approximately 56% of the national average, and consumes approximately 11% of the United States average natural gas consumption (California Energy Commission, 2006d and EIA, 2005b). Nevertheless, with a population of 34 million people, California residents consume approximately 10% of the nation’s total energy produced (EIA, 2002) and the state is the tenth largest consumer of energy in the world.

Transportation Sector Consumption The transportation sector is a major end use of energy in California, accounting for approximately 37% of total statewide energy consumption in 2004. In addition, energy is consumed in connection with construction and maintenance of transportation infrastructure, such as streets, highways, freeways, rail lines, ports, and airports. California’s nearly 28 million vehicles consume more than 16 billion gallons of gasoline and more than 3 billion gallons of diesel annually, making California the second largest consumer of gasoline in the world (California Energy Commission, 2006c).

Demand for petroleum products in the United States averaged 19.7 million barrels per day in 2004 (EIA, 2005a). This represents about 3 gallons each day for every person in the country. Considering that the Bay Area has an estimated population (as of 2005) of 7.1 million, one can estimate consumption of roughly 506,400 barrels per day for the Bay Area region.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.5-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Energy

Residential, Industrial and Commercial Sector Consumption California has the lowest annual electrical consumption per resident of any state and uses 20% less natural gas per person than the national average. In 2003, California per capita electricity usage was 6,732 kiloWatt hours (kWh), which was 56% of the national average usage of 11,997 kWh (California Energy Commission, 2006d).

Energy consumption from industrial shipments is expected to grow by 4.5% per year on average in the State. At the same time, industrial energy use has declined by an annual rate of about 2.3% due to increases in energy efficiency. Considering the 2.3% decrease in industrial demand due to conservation measures together with the 4.5% in industrial shipments, industrial energy use is expected to grow 2.2% annually on average (California Energy Commission, 2001).

PG&E supplied its customers in northern California with approximately 900 billion standard cubic feet of natural gas in 2002. Industrial and commercial customers accounted for approximately two thirds of this gas.

Contra Costa County is located in a coastal climate zone (Climate Zone 3 in the Title 24 Climate Zone designation mapping) and, with the moderating influence of the bay, requires less energy for heating than other parts of the state.

4.5.2.2 Local Setting

Energy Production The main source of energy at the Refinery is refinery gas (also called fuel gas), which is a volatile hydrocarbon gas made in the process of breaking down and reformulating crude oil and other raw materials into usable products. Refinery gas is burned to operate process heaters, and boilers, and to power the turbines and duct burners for ConocoPhillips’ 50-MW Cogeneration Plant.

Refinery production of refinery gas for the years from 2000 to 2004 is shown on Table 4.5-1. Since the heating value of refinery gas fluctuates slightly and differs from natural gas, the values are presented as heat input or fuel value in units of million British thermal units squared (Btu2) rather than in volumes of gas; these ranged from 14,135,000 to 17,067,800 million Btu per year.

TABLE 4.5-1 REFINERY GAS PRODUCTION FROM 2000 THROUGH 2004

Estimated Refinery Gas Year Production (million Btu/year)

2000 14,135,000 2001 17,067,800 2002 14,838,000 2003 16,874,400 2004 16,097,600

SOURCE: ConocoPhillips (2005)

2 One Btu is the quantity of heat needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water by 1° Fahrenheit at sea level.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.5-4 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Energy

The Refinery’s 50-MW Cogeneration Plant uses three simple-cycle gas turbines to generate electricity and gas turbine waste heat to generate steam for all the Refinery’s own needs. Currently, the Cogeneration Plant, which operates approximately 95% of the time, produces approximately 48 MW. The total annual electrical energy usage at the Refinery is approximately 404,000 megaWatt-hours (MWhr) (ConocoPhillips, 2005). When excess electricity is available, it is exported to the regional electrical grid. When refinery gas is not available, the Cogeneration Plant is fueled by natural gas supplied by PG&E. In addition, the ConocoPhillips’ Carbon Plant, which is located on contiguous property on the southern boundary of the Refinery (see Figure 3- 2), exports 12 MW to the PG&E grid.

Electrical power and natural gas for the Refinery is supplemented by purchases from PG&E, which is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).

Energy Consumption Pipeline shipping operations occur at Unit 80, located near San Pablo Avenue in the East Refinery/Tormey Hill area. Most of the Refinery’s liquid product is distributed through this unit to northern California pipelines. The electrical energy required to transport the pipeline products is estimated to be 0.84 MWh per hour of operation. This consumption is estimated based on pipeline shipment from the Refinery to a distribution center in Concord. The diesel fuel required to transport products by marine vessel, barge, or truck is estimated at 205 gallons per hour (ConocoPhillips, 2005)

Most products are shipped to West Coast destinations that can be reached on average within 6 days. The marine terminal is located west of San Pablo Avenue, in the West Refinery area. The Refinery ships some gasoline (about 7 trips per year) and some diesel (about 13 trips per year) by marine vessel. The Refinery also ships gasoline and diesel by barge, about 56 and 32 trips per year, respectively. Estimated barge and marine vessel trips for heavy gas oil (HGO) are 145 and 5 trips per year, respectively. The amount of diesel fuel to power these marine vessels and tugboats is estimated at 84 gallons per hour (ConocoPhillips, 2005).

As stated under Energy Production above, the Cogeneration Plant is fueled mainly by refinery gas. When refinery gas supply is insufficient to power the Cogeneration Plant, the refinery gas supply is supplemented by natural gas purchased from PG&E. As shown on Table 4.5-2, the quantities (in terms of heating value) of natural gas supplied by PG&E to the Refinery ranged from 6,015,900 to 8,818,200 million Btu/year from 2000 to 2004.

4.5.2.3 Regulatory Setting Federal and state agencies regulate energy use and consumption through various programs. On the federal level, the U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT), U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) are three agencies with substantial influence over energy policies and programs. Generally, federal agencies influence transportation energy consumption through establishment and enforcement of fuel economy

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.5-5 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Energy

TABLE 4.5-2 NATURAL GAS PURCHASED FROM 2000 THROUGH 2004

Natural Gas Purchased Year (million Btu/year)

2000 8,818,200 2001 6,060,500 2002 6,708,700 2003 6,015,900 2004 6,352,400

SOURCE: ConocoPhillips (2005)

standards for automobiles and light trucks, through funding of energy related research and development projects, and through funding for transportation infrastructure projects. On the state level, the CPUC and CEC are the two agencies with authority over different aspects of energy.

Federal Regulations

Energy Policy and Conservation Act The Energy Policy Act of 1975 was established in response to the oil crisis of 1973, which increased oil prices due to a shortage of reserves. The Act required that all vehicles sold in the U.S. meet certain fuel economy goals. Since 1990, the fuel economy standard for new passenger cars has been 27.5 miles per gallon. Since 1996, the fuel economy standard for new light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less) has been 20.7 miles per gallon. Heavy-duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) are not subject to fuel economy standards.

Energy Policy Act of 2005 Signed by President Bush on August 8, 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 seeks to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy resources and provide incentives to reduce current demand on these resources. For example, under the Act, consumers and businesses can obtain federal tax credits for purchasing fuel-efficient appliances and products. Because driving fuel-efficient vehicles and installing energy-efficient appliances can provide many benefits, such as lower energy bills, increased indoor comfort, and reduced air pollution, businesses are eligible for tax credits for buying hybrid vehicles, building energy efficient buildings, and improving the energy efficiency of commercial buildings. Additionally, tax credits are given for the installation of qualified fuel cells, stationary microturbine power plants, and solar power equipment.

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) promotes the development of inter-modal transportation systems to maximize mobility as well as address national and local interests in air quality and energy. ISTEA contains factors that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), such as the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), are

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.5-6 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Energy to address in developing transportation plans and programs, including some energy-related factors. To meet the new ISTEA requirements, MPOs have adopted explicit policies defining the social, economic, energy, and environmental values that guide transportation decisions in their respective metropolitan areas. The planning process for specific projects would then address these policies. Another requirement of ISTEA is to consider the consistency of transportation planning with federal, state, and local energy goals. Through this requirement, energy consumption is expected to be a decision criterion, along with cost and other values to determine the best transportation solution.

Federal Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Regulations The US EPA established a comprehensive national control program to reduce the level of sulfur in highway diesel fuel by 97% in 2006. The regulations requires the use of ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD), defined as diesel fuel with a sulfur content not to exceed 15 parts per million (ppm) in the United States. California has set a more stringent timeline for ULSD and chose to require low sulfur diesel to be used in all vehicles (e.g. both on-highway and off-road) as opposed to US EPA's initial requirement that low sulfur diesel fuel must be used in only on-highway vehicles.

State and Local Regulations

State of California Integrated Energy Policy The CEC adopts and transmits to the Governor and Legislature a report of findings biannually. In 2002, the Legislature reconstituted the State’s responsibility to develop an integrated energy plan for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels. At a Special Business Meeting on November 12, 2003, the CEC adopted the 2003 Integrated Energy Policy. The 2004 Update to the Integrated Energy Policy was adopted by the Energy Commission on November 3, 2004. The 2005 Integrated Energy Policy was adopted by the Energy Commission on November 21, 2005.

The plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for Zero Emission Vehicles and addressing their infrastructure needs; and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

California’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan / Diesel Fuel Regulations As part of California’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has passed numerous regulations to reduce diesel emissions from vehicles and equipment that are already in use. Combining these retrofit regulations with new engine standards for diesel fueled vehicles and equipment, CARB intends to reduce diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions by 85% from year 2000 levels by 2020.

California Diesel Fuel Regulations, promulgated in Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Sections 2281-2285 and Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Section 93114, provide standards for motor vehicle fuels and diesel fuel. As of June 2006, the regulations require the

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.5-7 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Energy

15 parts per million sulfur standard, in accordance with the phase-in schedule. Amendments to the regulations are currently being proposed to extend the California standards for motor vehicle diesel fuel to diesel fuel used in harborcraft and intrastate locomotives.

Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations is the California Building Code, governing all aspects of building construction. Included in Part 6 of the code are standards mandating energy efficiency measures in new construction. Since its establishment in 1977, the building efficiency standards (along with standards for energy efficiency in appliances) have contributed to a reduction in electricity and natural gas costs in California. The standards are updated every three years to allow new energy efficiency technologies to be considered.

Contra Costa County General Plan The goals and policies related to energy in the Contra Costa County General Plan are:

• Achieve a balance of uses of the County’s natural and developed resources to meet social and economic needs of the County’s residents. • Reduce energy use in the County to avoid risks of air pollution and energy shortages which prevent orderly development. • Achieve utilization of oil and gas resources in a manner beneficial to all County residents. (Contra Costa County, 2005)

4.5.3 Significance Criteria and Discussion of No Impact

4.5.3.1 Significance Criteria The significance criteria for this analysis were developed from criteria presented in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix F. The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to energy resources if it would: a) Result in a substantial increase in overall per capita energy consumption. b) Result in wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. c) Require or result in the construction of new sources of energy supplies or additional energy infrastructure capacity, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. d) Conflict with applicable energy efficiency policies or standards.

4.5.3.2 Discussion of No Energy Impact Review and comparison of the setting circumstances and Proposed Project characteristics with each of the four significance criteria stated above, clearly show that no impacts would result with

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.5-8 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Energy respect to the following three issues. The following discusses the reasoning supporting this conclusion: a. Potential of the Proposed Project to result in a substantial increase in overall per capita energy consumption.

ConocoPhillips currently generates most of the electricity and refinery gas necessary to operate the Refinery; with operation of the Proposed Project, ConocoPhillips would continue its practice of consuming less electricity than is produced by the Refinery and Carbon Plant and would not increase its consumption of natural gas. No Impact. c. Potential of the Proposed Project to require or result in the construction of new sources of energy supplies or additional energy infrastructure capacity the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Similar to item a., the Refinery currently generates most of the electricity and refinery gas necessary to operate the Refinery and with the Proposed Project, would continue this practice. The amounts of electricity and natural gas required for the Proposed Project would not require or cause the construction or change in any existing infrastructure or supply external to the Refinery and thus would not cause any significant environmental effects. No Impact. d. Potential of the Proposed Project to conflict with applicable energy efficiency policies or standards.

Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would meet applicable state and federal energy policies or standards. Contra Costa County does not currently have any specific energy efficiency policies or standards. However, ConocoPhillips would incorporate energy conservation measures into the Proposed Project that include installing: 1) Energy efficient lighting; 2) High efficiency electric motors; 3) High efficiency pumps; 4) High efficiency compressors; and 5) Cogeneration of electric power (electric generator at the new Hydrogen Plant). Thus, the Proposed Project would not conflict with energy efficiencies or standards. No Impact.

The remaining criteria are discussed in Section 4.5.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, under Impact 4.5-1, and Section 4.5.5, Cumulative Impacts, Impact 4.5-2, below.

4.5.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures This energy analysis addresses the changes in energy consumption that would result from the construction and operation of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would require the use of additional energy to increase the production of gasoline and diesel fuels at the Refinery. Most of the energy required would be provided from the new Hydrogen Plant, as well as refinery gases that are byproducts of processing.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.5-9 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Energy

Impact 4.5-1: The construction and operation of the Proposed Project could result in wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. This would be a less-than-significant impact.

Construction of the Proposed Project would consume fuel for all forms of transportation. Fuel consumption was estimated using mileage and hourly fuel use rates for construction vehicles, delivery vehicles, and commuting workers, and by estimating the utilization factors for the types and quantities of delivery vehicles, lengths of trips, and vehicle fuel economy of the worker commutes. As shown on Table 4.5-3, during the peak construction month, it is projected that construction equipment and deliveries would consume approximately 49,000 gallons of diesel. In addition, the construction equipment, deliveries, and worker commute trips were projected to use approximately 87,000 gallons of gasoline during a peak construction month. Construction of the Proposed Project would require an estimated 907,000 gallons of diesel and 271,000 gallons of gasoline from operation of the construction equipment, based on preliminary numbers. An additional 449,000 gallons of gasoline are expected to be used by commuting workers for the construction period.3

TABLE 4.5-3 DIRECT ENERGY USE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Subcategory Peak Month Total

Transportation Energy Construction Equipment 49,000 gal (diesel) 907,000 gal (diesel) 46,500 gal (gasoline) 271,000 gal (gasoline) Worker Commute 36,000 gal (gasoline) 449,000 gal (gasoline) Deliveries 4,500 gal (diesel) 54,200 gal (diesel) Electricity Use All 334 kW (peak day) 800,000 kWh

Delivery vehicles would use an estimated 4,500 gallons of diesel during the peak month and an estimated 54,200 gallons of diesel during the entire 18-21-month construction phase.4 Peak electrical demand for construction is estimated at 334 kW and peak monthly usage of electricity would be 66,000 kWh, while electrical power consumption would be approximately 800,000 kWh for the total construction period.

The energy required for construction of the Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact as compared to existing conditions. Proposed Project construction would not reduce or

3 The average construction month has 22 workdays. The average commute for workers is expected to be 19.3 miles one-way in Contra Costa County. (http://www.plsinfo.org/healthysmc/29/how residents_commute.html) The average fuel economy is 20.7 miles per gallon. (http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/air/air-10.cfm) The average vehicle occupancy is 1.1. Based on the experience, the occupancy number is 1.25 to 1.5 persons per vehicle. The 1.1 average is the low estimate reduced by 10% (and rounded) to be more conservative. 4 The base fuel economy for platform trucks and delivery vans is 7.8 miles per gallon. (http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2004/session6/2004_deer_kodjak.pdf). An estimated 330 deliveries per month (average 15 per day) for eighteen months Proposed Project. A delivery truck travel distance of 20 miles (comparable to worker commute distance) was used in the calculation.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.5-10 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Energy interrupt existing electrical or natural gas services, nor would the Proposed Project require construction of new facilities or improvements to the energy infrastructure.

The Cogeneration Plant currently produces approximately 48 MW of electrical power, which, as of 2005, was sufficient to supply most of the Refinery’s internal needs. During times of high consumption, the Refinery purchases the extra electricity and natural gas required to operate from PG&E. In addition, the ConocoPhillips Carbon Plant is a net exporter of 12 MW to the PG&E grid. Table 4.5-4 presents the existing peak energy use, Proposed Project peak energy use and change in energy use with the Proposed Project. Table 4.5-4 also shows the reductions in energy use that would result from the proposed shutdown of the Unit 240 B-1 boiler.

TABLE 4.5-4 ENERGY USE AT PROCESS UNITS PROPOSED TO BE MODIFIED

Existing Existing Change in Change in Peak Peak Heat Project Project Project Project Electrical Input (CY Peak Peak Peak Heat Peak Heat Use (CY 2005) Electrical Electrical Input Use Input Use 2005) (Million Power Use Power Use (Million (Million Equipment Description (MW) Btu/hr) (MW) (MW) Btu/hr) Btu/hr)

Unicracking Unit (Unit 240) 15.4 897 25 +9.6 861 -36 Reforming Unit (Unit 244) 0.45 141 2 +1.55 233 +92 UNISAR Unit (Unit 248) 1.34 24 2 +0.66 25 +1 Product Blending (Unit 76) 0.34 N/A 0.43 +0.09 N/A N/A Deisobutanizing Unit (Unit 215 0.047 29 0.067 +0.020 41 +12 DIB) Sulfur Plant (Unit 234, 236 and 5.5 50 5.67 +0.17 55 +5 238) Tank Farm (pumps, etc.) 0.52 N/A 0.65 +0.13 N/A N/A New Hydrogen Plant, including N/A N/A 6.2 +6.2 1,300 +1,300 SMR furnace, flare and cooling tower New Sulfur Recovery Unit N/A N/A 1.5 +1.5 +15.5 +15.5 Shutdown of Unit 240 B-1 0.1 116 0. -0.1 0 -116 Boiler

Total 23.6 1,257 43.5 +19.8 2,530.5 +1,273.5

SOURCE: ConocoPhillips (2005)

The net increase in peak electricity use after the Proposed Project is implemented would be about 19.8 MW, including 6.2 MW for the new Hydrogen Plant and 13.6 MW for expanded Refinery processing operations. The steam turbine at the Hydrogen Plant would produce about 10 MW, which would be sufficient to supply the electricity for the new Hydrogen Plant and would supply approximately 3.8 MW to the Refinery. The Proposed Project operations would require purchasing about 9.8 MW of electricity from PG&E. A new 115kV electrical substation located on site would be required to supply electrical power from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s substation adjacent to the Refinery to the Proposed Project. Two new approximately 150-foot transmission lines would be needed to connect

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.5-11 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Energy the PG&E substation with the new Refinery substation (PG&E, 2006). The location of these substations and transmission lines, within the Refinery boundaries, are shown on Figure 3-3. Because the Proposed Project would result in processing of an additional 23,000 barrels/day of HGO, there would be an increase in production of refinery gas of approximately 10 to 12 million Btu/hr over the current baseline. This additional refinery gas would be used to feed the Refinery’s increased needs as well as the new Hydrogen Plant. There will be no net change in natural gas usage with the Proposed Project. The energy content of the HGO that would be processed or the additional fuels that would be produced is not included in Table 4.5-4. The Proposed Project would require 9.8 MW of electricity from PG&E, however ConocoPhillips (the Carbon Plant) would continue to export a net 12 MW to PG&E. Therefore, ConocoPhillips would continue to be a net exporter of 2.2 MW of electricity to PG&E with operation of the Proposed Project. In summary, with operation of the Proposed Project, ConocoPhillips will continue to be a next exporter of electricity and will not increase its natural gas consumption over baseline conditions and thus the Proposed Project would not represent a wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy and would be a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation: None required.

4.5.5 Cumulative Impacts

Impact 4.5-2: The Proposed Project together with proposed and planned future development at the Refinery and in the area in general, could result in a cumulative impact to energy resources. This would be a less-than-significant cumulatively considerable impact.

The construction and the operation of the Proposed Project, in addition to other cumulative Refinery projects and other non-Refinery cumulative development in the Proposed Project area, would not result in any known cumulative impacts to energy resources. Because ConocoPhillips would continue to export electricity to PG&E and continue to use natural gas at existing levels, the increase in energy use from Proposed Project operations would not result in a significant impact to energy supply or demand. The energy required for the construction and operation of the Proposed Project would be a less-than-significant portion of the regional energy supplies, and would not place significant demands on the regional energy infrastructure. The Proposed Project does not involve construction of major new energy facilities off-site, or of facilities that would stimulate the Bay Area’s economy, resulting in a cumulative increase in energy use. The construction and the operation of the Proposed Project, in addition to other cumulative refinery projects and other non-refinery cumulative development, would not result in any known cumulative impacts to energy. Mitigation: None required.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.5-12 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Energy

References – Energy California Energy Commission (CEC), 2001. California Energy Outlook – Electricity and Natural Gas Trends Report, available online at http://www.energy.ca.gov/energyoutlook, September 2001.

California Energy Commission (CEC), 2005. Oil and Petroleum in California, available online at http://www.energy.ca.gov/oil/index.html, updated October 20, 2005. Website accessed February 6, 2006.

California Energy Commission (CEC), 2006a. California Gross System Power for 2005, a. available online at http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_power.html, updated April 14, 2006.

California Energy Commission (CEC), 2006b. California’s Major Sources of Energy, available online at. http://www.energy.ca.gov/html/energysources.html. Website accessed November 13, 2006.

California Energy Commission (CEC), 2006c. Fuel and Transportation Division, available online at http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/index.html, updated November 13, 2006.

California Energy Commission (CEC), 2006d. US Per Capita Electricity Use By State in 2003, available online at ttp://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/us_percapita_electricity_2003.html, updated November 14, 2006.

California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, (California Energy Code).

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery, 2005. Rodeo Clean Fuels Expansion Project - Energy and Utilities Supplement, Document No. 0030030-01-07, November 2005, Revised May 2006.

Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), January 2005.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2002. Selected California Electric Energy Statistics for 1999, available online at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/california/statistics.html, August 2002. Website Accessed February 6, 2006.

EIA, 2005a. Petroleum Products Factsheet. Updated September 2005. Available Online at http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/petroleumproducts.htm. Accessed June 6, 2006.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Detailed Interconnection Study, October 3, 2006.

Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). 2005. Fuel Supply Backgrounder. May 17, 2005.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.5-13 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

The Proposed Project would have several potential impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity. The environmental effects associated with the implementation of the Proposed Project would be: • Seismic ground shaking could result in injuries to persons and/or structural damage. • Facilities might be exposed to expansive soils and natural settlement. • Construction could result in soil erosion during excavation and grading. Each of these impacts of the Proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. There are no cumulative impacts that would result from the Proposed Project and the other cumulative, non-refinery projects.

4.6.1 Introduction This chapter identifies and evaluates potential impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity that could result from the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project includes new facilities or modifications of existing facilities at the Refinery. This section establishes the existing conditions based on the regional geology and seismicity of Contra Costa County and the San Francisco Bay Area. This is followed by a discussion of the soils, geologic units, earthquake faults, and potential seismic hazards at the Refinery. The regulatory framework section discusses state and county policies and regulations that pertain to the geologic hazards, seismic hazards, and protection of soil resources. The impact analysis determines the geologic impacts based on the significance criteria and when necessary, the impact analysis includes appropriate mitigation measures.

4.6.2 Setting

4.6.2.1 Regional Setting The Refinery is located in northern Contra Costa County along the southeastern edge of San Pablo Bay. Geologically, this region of California is characterized by a series of northwest trending mountains and valleys controlled by tectonic folding and faulting. The region has undergone a complex geologic history of folding, faulting, uplift, sedimentation, volcanism, and erosion.

The region is characterized primarily by sedimentary rocks, occasional volcanic rocks, and alluvial deposits. Regional basement rocks consist of the highly deformed Great Valley Sequence, which include massive beds of marine sandstone intermixed with siltstone and shale, and marine sandstone and shale overlain by soft non-marine units. Unconsolidated alluvial deposits, artificial fill, and estuarine deposits underlie the marginal areas along the San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Straight, and Suisun Bay. Landslides in the region occur in weak, easily weathered bedrock on relatively steep slopes.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.6-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

The Refinery is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay region situated on a plate boundary marked by the San Andreas Fault System, which consists of several northwest trending active and potentially active faults, as shown on Figure 4.6-1. In the Bay Area, movement along this plate boundary is distributed across a complex system of strike-slip, right-lateral, parallel and sub-parallel faults. These faults include the San Andreas, Hayward, Rodgers Creek-Healdsburg, Concord-Green Valley, Greenville-Marsh Creek, Calaveras, and West Napa.

4.6.2.2 Project Setting

Geology Much of the hillsides in the active area of the Refinery have been subjected to extensive cut-and- fill excavation during past construction activities. The grading took place in the 1950s and earlier to form level areas for the construction of tanks and refining equipment. Subsurface conditions generally consist of varying thicknesses of artificial fill materials and native soil over weathered sedimentary rocks. Artificial fill consists of heterogeneous mixtures of clay, sand, and gravel and native soils, where still present, are fine textured silt, clay, and sand mixtures that cover underlying bedrock in a thin mantle. Bedrock outcropping is also overlaid by hollow ovals of artificial levee fill, which resulted from the Refinery’s historic cut and fill activities. Areas mapped as artificial levee fill are noted as largely consisting of dumped, uncompacted material when created prior to 1965 (Helley and Graymer, 1997). Bedrock underlying the Proposed Project site is classified as San Pablo Group sedimentary rocks of the Neroly and Cierbo Formations which consist of marine sandstones interbedded with siltstone, mudstone, and shale (Graymer et al, 1994).

A preliminary geotechnical engineering study was performed in 2002 as part of the Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Strategic Modernization Plan project to address the proposed improvements (Contra Costa County, 2003). The investigation evaluated subsurface conditions at the locations of the facilities proposed for that project and determined that the majority of the site is underlain by the Neroly Formation. A summary of the subsurface conditions described in the engineering study by Geomatrix for the areas of the facility improvements for the Proposed Project is provided below.

Hydrocracker Expansion Unit 246 and 240 Exploratory borings for the nearby Diesel Hydrotreater (Unit 250) encountered fill material overlying bedrock, with some areas containing native soils between existing fill and bedrock layers. Fill materials generally consisted of sandy clay with gravel (weathered native sandstone and claystone), silty clay, and clayey sand with gravel. Native soils consist of clayey sand and sandy clay up to 3 feet thick. Depth to bedrock ranged from 2 feet below ground surface (bgs) to 15 feet bgs, increasing from north to south. Groundwater was encountered in one boring at a depth of approximately 5 feet bgs.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.6-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.6-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

Amine Regenerators, Related Modifications, and New Sulfur Recovery Unit – Existing Units 234, 236, 238 and Proposed Unit 235 The Refinery’s three parallel sulfur recovery units (Units 234, 236, and 238) are located on a sloping hillside in the Sulfur / MP-30 Complex. The proposed new sulfur recovery unit (235) would be located south of Units 234, 236, and 238 in the Lower Tank Farm area. The existing sulfur recovery units are located on terraced pads created by cut and fill operations. Previously, one exploratory boring was drilled in this area to a depth of 10 feet, which encountered approximately 2 ½ feet of sand and silty clay fill over ½ foot of native sandy clay. Sandstone bedrock was encountered at 3 feet bgs. The silty clay fill and native sandy clay have moderate to high plasticity and the fill did not appear to be well compacted. Groundwater was not encountered.

New Hydrogen Plant Unit 120 The proposed Hydrogen Plant would be located within the East Refinery / Tormey Hill area, south of the tank farm and near existing process blocks. Previous Geotechnical borings in this area of the Refinery encountered sand and sandy clay fill, varying in thickness from 5 to 12 ½ feet, over weathered sandstone. Groundwater has been encountered, in previous studies between 6 ½ to 14 ½ feet bgs.

Faults and Seismicity The San Francisco Bay Area region contains both active and potentially active faults and is considered a region of high seismic activity.1 The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities has evaluated the probability of one or more earthquakes of Richter magnitude 6.7 or higher occurring in the San Francisco Bay Area within the next 30 years. The result of the evaluation indicated a 70 percent likelihood that such an earthquake event would occur in the Bay Area between 2003 and 2032 (USGS, 2003).

The site could be subjected to damage from movement on any one of the active Bay Area earthquake faults. The Refinery is located approximately mid-way between the active Hayward and Concord-Green Valley faults, as shown on Figure 4.6-1. Table 4.6-1 lists the nearest active and potentially active faults, Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE), and the probability of occurrence.

The closest active fault to the Refinery is the Hayward fault, located approximately 7 miles southwest. The Hayward Fault Zone is the southern extension of a fracture zone that includes the Rodgers Creek fault (north of San Pablo Bay), the Healdsburg fault (Sonoma County), and the Maacama fault (Mendocino County). The Hayward fault trends to the northwest within the East Bay, extending from San Pablo Bay in Richmond, 60 miles south to San Jose, when it converges

1 An “active” fault is defined by the State of California as a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 10,000 years). A “potentially active” fault is defined as a fault that has shown evidence of surface displacement during the Quaternary (last 1.6 million years), unless direct geologic evidence demonstrates inactivity for all of the Holocene or longer. This definition does not, of course, mean that faults lacking evidence of surface displacement are necessarily inactive. “Sufficiently active” is also used to describe a fault if there is some evidence that Holocene displacement occurred on one or more of its segments or branches (Hart, 1997).

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.6-4 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

TABLE 4.6-1 ACTIVE FAULTS IN THE PROJECT SITE VICINITY

Maximum Moment Location and Magnitude Direction from Recency of Fault Historical Earthquake Fault Refinery Movement Classificationa Seismicityb (Mw)c

Hayward 7 miles southwest Pre-Historic Active M6.8, 1868 7.1 (possible 1836; Many

a See footnote 2. b Richter magnitude (M) and year for recent and/or large events. The Richter magnitude scale reflects the maximum amplitude of a particular type of seismic wave. c Moment magnitude is related to the physical size of a fault rupture and movement across a fault. Moment magnitude provides a physically meaningful measure of the size of a faulting event (CGS 2002). The Maximum Moment Magnitude Earthquake (Mw), derived from the joint CGS/USGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, 1996. (Peterson, 1997).

SOURCES: Jennings, 1994; Hart 1997

with the Calaveras fault, a similar type fault that extends north to Suisun Bay. Historically, the Hayward fault generated two sizable earthquakes, both in the 1800s. The USGS Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities includes the Hayward–Rodgers Creek Fault Systems in the list of those faults that have the highest probability of generating earthquakes of M 6.7 and greater.

Nearby potentially active faults include the Franklin and Southampton faults. The Franklin Fault, located 1 mile east of the Refinery, is a reverse fault that extends from southwest of the Walnut Creek area to an inferred terminal point located near the town of Selby along the south shore of the Carquinez Strait. The maximum credible earthquake for the Franklin Fault has been estimated to be M 6.5 (Geomatrix, 1992 as referenced in Contra Costa County, 2003). The Southampton Fault, located approximately 2.5 miles east of the Refinery, extends northwest across the Carquinez Strait near the town of Port Costa to an inferred terminal point in the low-lying hills east of the city of Vallejo. The maximum credible earthquake for the Southampton fault has been

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.6-5 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils, and Seismicity estimated to be M 6.25 (Geomatrix, 1992 as referenced in Contra Costa County, 2003).The California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly California Division of Mines and Geology) does not consider the Franklin or Southampton Faults to be active, nor are they zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Act as Earthquake Hazard Zones, as discussed below (Hart, 1997).

Ground movement intensity during an earthquake can vary depending on the overall magnitude, distance to the fault, focus of earthquake energy, and type of geologic material. Areas that are underlain by bedrock tend to experience less ground shaking than those underlain by unconsolidated sediments such as artificial fill. In general, bedrock areas would experience ground shaking of higher frequency, shorter period, and lower amplitude. Structural damage resulting from shaking tends to be worse for structures located on unconsolidated deposits. Earthquake ground shaking may have secondary effects on certain foundation materials, including liquefaction and seismically induced settlement.

Seismic Hazards Seismic hazards include ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, differential settlement, landsliding, and inundation by encroaching waves (tsunami and seiches). There are no known active faults traversing the Refinery property and therefore, fault rupture is not considered a potential geologic hazard capable of causing damage to Refinery equipment.

Ground Shaking Strong ground shaking from earthquakes generated by active faults in the Bay Area is a significant hazard to the Proposed Project. During the life of the Proposed Project, the Refinery is likely to be subjected to at least one moderate to severe earthquake that would cause strong ground shaking.

The severity of ground shaking at a site at the Refinery resulting from a specific earthquake would depend on the characteristics of the generating fault, distance to the energy source, the magnitude of the event, and the site-specific geologic conditions. The areas of the Refinery directly underlain by bedrock would likely experience less severe ground shaking than those underlain by artificial fill or native soils. According to the CGS probabilistic seismic hazard map, peak ground acceleration2 at the Refinery could reach or exceed 0.46 g (CGS, 2006). A probabilistic seismic hazard map3 is a map that shows the hazard from earthquakes that geologists

2 Ground accelerations are expressed in terms of g, which is equal to the acceleration of gravity, or approximately 32.2 feet per second2. An object that accelerates at 1 g for one second will reach a speed of 32.2 feet per second and cover a distance of 16.1 feet. 3 The maps are typically expressed in terms of probability of exceeding a certain ground motion. For example, the maps showing 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years depict an annual probability of 1 in 475 of being exceeded each year. This level of ground shaking has been used for designing buildings in high seismic areas. These maps show ground motions that geologists and seismologists do not think would be exceeded in the next 50 years; in fact, there is a 90 percent chance that these ground motions would not be exceeded. This probability level allows engineers to design buildings for larger ground motions than geologists and seismologists think would occur during a 50-year interval, which makes buildings safer than if they were only designed for the ground motions that are expected to occur in the next 50 years. Seismic shaking maps are prepared using consensus information on historical earthquakes and faults. These levels of ground shaking are used primarily for formulating building codes and for designing buildings. The maps can also be used for estimating potential economic losses and preparing for emergency response (Peterson et al., 1999).

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.6-6 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils, and Seismicity and seismologists agree could occur. It is “probabilistic” in the sense that the analysis takes into consideration the uncertainties in the size and location of earthquakes and the resulting ground motions that can affect a particular site. By comparison, the maximum ground accelerations recorded in San Francisco and Oakland during the 1989 moment magnitude 6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake were approximately 0.3 g. However, the recording sites were located over 40 miles from the earthquake epicenter. Ground accelerations within the Loma Prieta epicenter region were 0.7 g (CGS, 1990). The Refinery, which is approximately 75 miles from the epicenter, experienced only 0.1 g (Contra Costa County, 1994).

Liquefaction Liquefaction is the sudden temporary loss of shear strength in saturated, loose to medium-density granular sediments subjected to ground shaking. It generally occurs when seismically-induced ground shaking causes the pressure of the water between the granules to increase to a point equal to the pressure of the soil overburden. When this occurs, the soil can move like a fluid, hence the term liquefaction. Liquefaction can cause foundation failure of buildings and other facilities due to the reduction of foundation bearing strength.

The potential for liquefaction depends on the duration and intensity of earthquake shaking, particle size distribution of the soil, density of the soil, and elevation of the groundwater. Areas at risk due to the effects of liquefaction are typified by a high groundwater table and underlying loose to medium-density granular sediments, particularly younger alluvium and artificial fill. Fill and native sediments encountered beneath the site during previous geotechnical investigations were predominantly stiff clayey sands and sandy clays with gravel, although layers of loose sands and sandy gravels were present. Shallow groundwater was encountered in some borings (Geomatrix, 2002 as referenced in Contra Costa County, 2003). Potential liquefaction hazards were not specifically analyzed during preliminary geotechnical investigations. However, previous geologic investigations at the Refinery have noted that areas underlain by shallow bedrock are generally not at risk for liquefaction (Contra Costa County, 1994). According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Liquefaction Susceptibility Map, the portions of the Refinery that are part of the Proposed Project have a very low risk of liquefaction (ABAG, 2004).

Differential Settlement Earthquake shaking can produce compaction and densification of dry, uniformly graded, granular and loose soil material. The amount of compaction across an area can vary due to differences in soil types, producing differential settlement. Artificial fill may also be susceptible to differential settlement. Differential settlement can affect existing and proposed foundations, slabs, and pavements. Preliminary geotechnical information indicates up to 0.5 inches of differential settlement may occur with use of a spread-footing foundation design (Geomatrix, 2002 as referenced in Contra Costa County, 2003).

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.6-7 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

Other Geologic Hazards

Expansive Soil Expansive soils exhibit a “shrink-swell” behavior. Shrink-swell is the cyclic change in volume (expansion and contraction) that occurs in fine-grained clay sediments from the process of wetting and drying. Structural damage may result over an extended period of time, usually as the result of inadequate soil and foundation engineering or the placement of structures directly on expansive soils. Typically, soils that exhibit expansive characteristics comprise the upper five feet of the surface. The effects of expansive soils could damage foundations of above-ground structures, paved roads and streets, and concrete slabs. Expansion and contraction of soils, depending on the season and the amount of surface water infiltration, could exert enough pressure on structures to result in cracking, settlement, and uplift. According to the previous engineering study, existing near surface soils at the several locations at the Refinery have moderate to high expansion potentials (Contra Costa County, 2003).

Soil Erosion Soil erosion is the process whereby soil materials are worn away and transported to another area either by wind or water. Rates of erosion can vary depending on the soil material and structure, placement and human activity. The erosion potential for soils is variable throughout the Proposed Project area. Excessive soil erosion can eventually lead to damage of building foundations, roadways and dam embankments. Erosion is most likely on sloped areas with exposed soil, especially when unnatural slopes are created by cut and fill activities. Soil erosion rates can therefore be higher during the construction phase. Typically, the soil erosion potential during construction is reduced by using modern construction practices; once an area is graded and covered with concrete, structures, asphalt, or vegetation, the soil erosion potential is nearly eliminated.

Landslides Landslides are dependent on the slope and geology of an area as well as the amount of rainfall, excavation, and seismic activity. A landslide or slope failure is a mass of rock, soil, and debris displaced downslope by sliding, flowing, or falling. Steep slopes and downslope creep of surface materials characterize landslide-susceptible areas.

Landslides can occur on slopes of 15% or less, however, the probability is greater on steeper slopes, with old landslide deposits being the most likely to experience failure (Contra Costa County, 1994). Landslides typically occur within slide-prone geologic units that contain excessive amounts of water.

Landslides may occur locally in colluvial deposits on hillsides, or within unsupported cut and fill slopes. The Refinery is constructed on a hillside that was historically altered to create flat, terraced building pads. These pads were created through cut and fill operations. Potential instability in existing or proposed terraced pads and retaining walls could result in landslide hazards. Although regional geologic mapping identified artificial levee fill within the Refinery as

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.6-8 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils, and Seismicity uncompacted, site-specific mapping of the Refinery has not identified landslide prone materials (Contra Costa County, 1994).

Natural Settlement Natural settlement typically occurs in unconsolidated deposits, such as artificial fill and estuarine deposits locally referred to as Bay Mud, over time as a result of increased foundation loads and vibrations from overlying structures. Natural settlement may affect foundations, slabs and pavements. Previous geotechnical studies indicated that areas of the site were susceptible to 1 inch of settlement, depending upon foundation design (Geomatrix, 2002 as referenced in Contra Costa County, 2003).

4.6.2.3 Regulatory Setting

California Building Code The California Building Code (CBC) has been codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as Title 24, Part 2, which is a portion of the California Building Standards Code. Under state law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable. The California Building Standards Commission is, by law, responsible for coordinating all building standards under Title 24. The purpose of the California Building Code is to provide minimum standards to safeguard the general public’s health, safety, property and welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction.

The CBC is based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), which is a model building code, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and which has been widely adopted in the United States. The CBC also adds necessary California amendments that include significant building design criteria tailored for California earthquake conditions.

The Proposed Project area is located within Zone 4, which is one of the four seismic zones designated in the United States by the UBC. Zone 4 is expected to experience the greatest effects from earthquake ground shaking and therefore has the most stringent requirements for seismic design. Except for modifications adopted by state agencies and local governing bodies, the national model code standards adopted into Title 24 apply to all occupied buildings in California.

Contra Costa County General Plan Contra Costa County has established goals, policies, and programs in regards to geologic hazards. These are outlined in the Conservation and Safety Element sections of the County General Plan. These goals and policies are summarized as follows:

• To include appropriate recommendations for seismic strengthening and detailing to meet the latest adopted seismic design criteria.

• To apply policies regarding liquefaction to other ground failures which might result from ground shaking, but which are less well-defined.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.6-9 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

• To give slope stability careful scrutiny in design, and in the adoption of conditions of approval and required mitigation measures.

• To subject soil and geological reports to the review and approval of the County Planning Geologist.

• To establish and enforce erosion control procedures for all construction and grading projects.

4.6.3 Significance Criteria and Discussion of No Impacts California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G, states that a project would have a significant geology or soils impact if it would: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map4 issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Discussion of No Impacts Review and comparison of the setting circumstances and Proposed Project characteristics with the significance criteria stated above, clearly show that no impacts would be associated with some of the above criteria. The following provides a discussion of each topic area for which there would be no geology and soils impact: a-i. Would the Proposed Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a

4 Per CEQA Guidelines, a known earthquake fault is one that has been delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.6-10 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map5 issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?

The closest active fault to the Refinery is the Hayward fault, located approximately 7 miles to the southwest. Although fault rupture is not necessarily limited to areas that coincide with the mapped fault trace, the Proposed Project site is sufficiently far enough away from the nearest active fault to be considered not at risk of fault rupture. Therefore fault rupture would result in no impact. a-iv. Would the Proposed Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?

The Refinery is constructed on a hillside that was historically altered to create flat, terraced building pads through cut and fill operations. Potential instability in existing or proposed terraced pads and retaining walls could result in landslide hazards. Although regional geologic mapping identified artificial levee fills within the Refinery as uncompacted, site- specific mapping of the Refinery has not identified landslide prone materials (Contra Costa County, 1994). Landsliding would result in no impact. e. Would the Proposed Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

The Proposed Project would not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Control of wastewater would be through the Refinery’s existing wastewater collection, treatment and disposal system. There would be no impact.

The remaining criteria are discussed in Section 4.6.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, under Impacts 4.6-1 through 4.6-4, and Section 4.6.5, Cumulative Impacts, below.

4.6.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact 4.6-1: Strong seismic ground shaking from a major earthquake in the region could potentially injure persons at the Proposed Project site due to structural damage of facility structures. Strong ground shaking could potentially expose persons and property to seismic-related hazards, including seismic-related ground failure, localized liquefaction and seismically-induced settlement. This is a less-than-significant impact.

According to the USGS, the Proposed Project would likely experience at least one major earthquake (greater than magnitude 6.7) within the next 30 years. The intensity of such an event would depend on the causative fault and the distance to the epicenter, the moment magnitude, and the duration of shaking. The closest active fault to the Refinery is the Hayward fault. Potential

5 Per CEQA Guidelines, a known earthquake fault is one that has been delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.6-11 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils, and Seismicity damage at the Refinery from a significant earthquake on the Hayward fault could include broken piping, piping supports, ruptured tanks, stressed support bolts, but the overall direct damage has been predicted to be minimal (CDMG, 1987). Damage at refineries located east of the Hayward fault, as is the Refinery, would reportedly be less severe than those west of the Hayward fault (CDMG, 1987). Damage from a significant earthquake on Rodgers Creek fault is predicted to be similar to that of the Hayward fault with only modest direct damage considering the vast number of structures, tanks, and pipelines associated with a refinery (CDMG, 1994).

Refineries are complex facilities and are, in general, conservatively designed and constructed. They consist not only of conventional buildings but also structures that are unique to the petroleum refinery process. Over time, refineries undergo modifications and additions. Each phase of modification may be constructed by different groups and may occur over many years. Because seismic design standards have changed considerably over the last several decades, the seismic resistance of a given refinery may vary with the age of construction, with the newest structures and process equipment expected to perform best.

Foundation and structural designs that can withstand the level of ground shaking that could occur at the Proposed Project site are in common use today. In accordance with the California Building Code (CBC), project equipment would be designed, at minimum, to withstand the ground acceleration that has a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years6. With foundation and structural design in accordance with the current CBC standards, seismic shaking should not result in significant structural damage to Proposed Project facilities. Seismic design consistent with current professional engineering and refinery industry standards would be employed in the proposed construction for resistance to strong ground shaking, especially for lateral forces. In the course of the final facility design, the project engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer may provide additional foundation design recommendations based on the ground conditions at the Proposed Project site. These recommendations would become part of the project specifications.

Appropriate grading and design, in accordance with the CBC requirements and local planning and building department requirements, would be used to reduce the secondary effects of ground shaking on structures and infrastructure. Any fill materials would be appropriately compacted and engineered as directed by the project California certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer.

A design level geotechnical investigation would be performed for each Proposed Project element site area. Each investigation would include an analysis of expected ground motions at the site from known active faults. The analyses would be in accordance with applicable County ordinances and policies and consistent with the most recent version of the California Building Code, which requires structural design that can accommodate ground accelerations expected from known active faults. The investigations would determine final design parameters for the earthwork, foundations, foundation slabs, and any surrounding related improvements (utilities,

6 CGS probability-based ground accelerations for the region encompassing the Refinery are estimated to reach or exceed 0.46 g (CGS, 2006).

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.6-12 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils, and Seismicity roadways, parking lots and sidewalks). The investigations would be reviewed and approved by a registered geotechnical engineer.

Mitigation: None required.

Impact 4.6-2: Construction of the Proposed Project could result in soil erosion during excavation, grading, and construction activities. This is a less-than-significant impact.

Construction of the proposed facilities would require earthwork and grading, which would expose soil and subject it to wind and water erosion. The extent of erosion that could occur varies depending on soil type, slope steepness and stability, vegetation/cover, and weather conditions. Previous work at the Refinery indicates that soil at the site generally consists of silty clay, sand, and sandy clay, soils that are susceptible to the effects of erosion. Water and wind induced erosion may occur during the construction phase of the Proposed Project when concrete and asphalt is removed and soils are stockpiled and exposed.

The Proposed Project is required by County ordinance to establish erosion control measures for grading activities. The Erosion Control Plan would include, at a minimum, the following requirements:

• Excavation and grading activities would be scheduled for the dry season only (April 15 to October 15), to the extent possible. This would reduce the chance of severe erosion from intense rainfall and surface runoff, as well as the potential for soil saturation.

• Temporary erosion control measures would be provided until re-vegetation is established or impervious surfaces (asphalt, concrete) are added.

• After completion of grading, erosion protection would be provided on all cut-and-fill slopes. Revegetation (if necessary) would be facilitated by mulching or hydroseeding, and would be initiated as soon as possible after completion of grading and prior to the onset of the rainy season (by November 1).

• Erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) selected and implemented for the Proposed Project would be in place and operational prior to the onset of major earthwork on the site.

Implementation of the Erosion Control Plan would minimize erosion impacts during construction.

Mitigation: None required.

Impact 4.6-3: The Proposed Project could be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. This would be a less- than-significant impact.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.6-13 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

As mentioned in the discussion of Impact 4.6-1, a design level geotechnical investigation would be performed for each Proposed Project element site area. Each investigation would include an analysis of the underlying soil properties including the potential for instability, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The analyses would be in accordance with current engineering standards which can effectively mitigate unstable soils. The investigations would determine final design parameters for the earthwork, foundations, foundation slabs, and any surrounding related improvements (utilities, roadways, parking lots and sidewalks). The investigations would be reviewed and approved by a California registered geotechnical engineer.

Mitigation: None required.

Impact 4.6-4: Proposed construction could experience damage from expansive soils and natural settlement. This would be a less-than-significant impact.

The effects of expansive soils, if present, could damage foundations of aboveground structures. Surface structures with foundations constructed in expansive soils could experience expansion and contraction depending on the season and the amount of surface water infiltration. The expansion and contraction could exert enough pressure on a structure to result in cracking, settlement, and uplift. As stated above, each Proposed Project element associated with construction would receive a site-specific geotechnical investigation. As part of these investigations, standard to current engineering practices, each site would be evaluated for potential expansive soils. The final geotechnical report for each site would include recommendations to mitigate any potential hazards associated with expansive soils, if any.

Natural settlement typically occurs in unconsolidated deposits, over time, as a result of increased foundation loads from overlying structures. Differential settlement would be a concern in areas that have been filled with unengineered fill. As discussed above, geotechnical recommendations would include measures such as the proper compaction of subsurface materials and installation of an adequate foundation necessary to minimize potential foundation or structural damage associated with settlement. As earlier discussed, the project applicant would be required to submit a design-level geotechnical report to the County in order to obtain grading and building permits. This report would include estimated excavation and fill volumes, compaction standards and methods, and foundation specifications. Compliance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) compaction standards and the Contra Costa County grading ordinance, and a structural foundation design that incorporates modern engineering standards and that is compliant with the CBC, would minimize potential settlement hazards to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation: None required.

Cumulative Impacts Impacts associated with geology and soils tend to be limited to individual project sites. Therefore, they generally do not result in cumulative impacts. Such is the case with the Proposed Project.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.6-14 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

The Proposed Project includes replacing plant equipment with newer equipment that would be constructed according to more modern seismic design standards. Therefore, in combination with upgrades of other facilities in the region there would be an overall cumulative benefit in resistance to potential expansive soil and adverse effects from ground shaking.

Mitigation: None required.

References – Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Susceptibility Map, ABAG Earthquake Program, 2004.

California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), Earthquake Planning Scenario for a Magnitude 7.5 Earthquake on the Hayward Fault in the San Francisco Bay Area, Special Publication 78, 1987.

California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake on the Rodgers Creek Fault in the Northern San Francisco Bay Area, Special Publication 112, 1994.

California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly California Division of Mines and Geology), How Earthquakes Are Measured, CDMG Note 32, 2002.

California Geological Survey (CGS), Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping, http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamap.asp, accessed February 9, 2006.

California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly California Division of Mines and Geology), The Loma Prieta (Santa Cruz Mountains), California, Earthquake of 17 October 1989, Special Publication 104, 1990.

Contra Costa County, ConocoPhillips Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel/Strategic Modernization Project Draft Environmental Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2002122017, May, 2003.

Contra Costa County, Unocal Corporation Reformulated Gasoline Project Draft Environmental Report, State Clearinghouse No. 93121027, September 1994.

Hart, E.W., Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones, California Geological Survey (formerly California Division of Mines and Geology), Special Publication 42, 1990, revised and updated 1997.

Graymer, R.W., Jones, D.L., Brabb, E.E., Preliminary Geologic Map Emphasizing Bedrock Formations in Contra Costa County, California: A Digital Database, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 94-622, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1994/of94-622/, 1994.

Helley, E.J., Graymer, R.W., Quaternary Geology of Contra Costa County, and Surrounding Parts of Alameda, Marin, Sonoma, Solano, Sacramento, and San Joaquin Counties, California: A Digital Database, http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of97-98/, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 97-98, 1997.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.6-15 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

Jennings, C.W., Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Geological Survey (formerly California Division of Mines and Geology) Data Map No. 6, 1:750,000, 1994.

Peterson, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Geological Survey (formerly California Division of Mines and Geology) Open-File Report issued jointly with U.S. Geological Survey, CDMG 96-08 and USGS 96-706, 1996.

Peterson, et.al., California Geological Survey (formerly California Division of Mines and Geology), Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California, 1999.

U.S. Geological Survey, Working Group on San Francisco Bay Region Earthquake Probabilities, USGS Fact Sheet 039-03, 2003.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.6-16 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Public Health

Exposure to toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions can result in health risks to the public. However, the incremental health risks from the Proposed Project would fall below the significance thresholds established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for projects. Since the predicted health risk increments from the Proposed Project would be less than the applicable significance thresholds, the health risk impacts would be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures would be required.

4.7.1 Introduction Public health issues are concerned with evaluating the carcinogenic or adverse non-carcinogenic health effects in the community from exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) as a result of the Proposed Project. TACs are air pollutants that are believed to have health impacts but do not have a corresponding ambient air quality standard.

TACs are often part of the criteria pollutants volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particulate matter (PM). TAC species that are included as VOCs are substances such as benzene, formaldehyde, and toluene. TAC species that are contained in PM include toxic heavy metals, such as lead, cadmium, and mercury, as well as large organic molecules that can form in the combustion process. These include substances such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (a component of soot). Sources of TACs in the environment are usually the result of industrial processes such as petroleum refining, petrochemical manufacturing, electric utilities, metal mining and refining, and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust.

This section evaluates the health risks from exposure to TACs related to the Proposed Project. The incremental risk of contracting cancer and/or adverse health effects from exposure to non- carcinogenic substances emitted from the Proposed Project is reported.

4.7.2 Setting

4.7.2.1 Existing TAC Concentrations Ambient air levels of TACs are measured at several stations in the region by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The station nearest to the Refinery is in Crockett. Table 4.7-1 summarizes measured concentrations of carcinogenic TACs for the most recent year in which data are available, which for most of the pollutants is the year 2002. These measured levels generally reflect TAC levels in the area, although there may be some higher levels close to ground-level sources of TACs. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is not included in the table because DPM is a mixture of many different toxic compounds and different methods are used to

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.7-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Health

TABLE 4.7-1 AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF CARCINOGENIC TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS MEASURED IN CROCKETT (KENDALL AVENUE) IN 2002

Concentration Unit Riskf Cancer Risk Compound (ppb)b (µg/m3)b (µg/m3) (per million)

Gaseous TACsa Acetaldehyde 0.59 1.08 2.70 x 10-6 2.9 1,3-Butadiene 0.12 0.28 1.70 x 10-4 47.6 Benzene 0.24 0.78 2.90 x 10-5 22.6 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.11 0.70 4.20 x 10-5 29.6 Formaldehyde 2.14 2.67 6.00 x 10-6 16.0 Perchloroethylene 0.02 0.14 5.90 x 10-6 0.8 Methylene Chloride 0.56 1.98 1.00 x 10-6 2.0 MTBE 0.40 1.47 2.60 x 10-7 0.4 Chloroform 0.02 0.10 5.30 x 10-6 0.5 -6 Trichloroethylenec 0.04 0.22 2.00 x 10 0.4 3 Dioxins/Furanse – 13 fg/m 38 0.5

(ng/m3)b (µg/m3) (µg/m3)

Particulate TACsa Chromium (Hexavalent) 0.10 1.00 x 10-4 015 15.0 -3 PAHsd 0.42 4.20 x 10-4 1.10 x 10 0.5 Nickel 3.83 3.83 x 10-3 2.60 X 10-4 1.0 Lead 9.17 9.17 x 10-3 1.20 X 10-5 0.1 Total Risk for All TACs 139

a All values are from BAAQMD monitoring equipment (BAAQMD, 2004), except those in bold, which come from the average of the five CARB monitoring sites (San Francisco, San Jose, Fremont, San Pablo, and Concord). CARB values are from 2000 except for the Concord and San Pablo sites, where sampling was suspended in 2000. The concentrations used from these two sites are the means of daily samples collected during the period 1 March 1999 through 29 February 2000. In calculating average concentrations, samples less than the limits of detection (LOD) were assumed to be equal to one-half of the LOD. b (ppb) is part per billion; (µg/m3) is micrograms per cubic meter or millionth of a gram per cubic meter; (ng/m3) is nanogram per cubic meter or billionth of a gram per cubic meter. c Concentrations were below the detection limit. One-half the detection limit was used to calculate cancer risks. d PAHs are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and they represent the sum of the following species collected as PMl0: benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)f1uoranthene, benzo(k)f1uoranthene, dibenzo(a,h) anthracene, and indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene. e The California Ambient Dioxin Air Monitoring Program (CADAMP) is a monitoring program administered by the Air Resources Board to provide information on ambient levels of dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. One of the CADAMP monitoring stations is located in Crockett, and the level reported in the table represents the annual average concentration in 2002. The units of measurement are in femtograms per cubic meter (fg/m3), where 1 fg/m3 equals 1x10-9 micrograms or one-quadrillionth of a cubic meter. f Unit Risk is the probability of contracting cancer if one is constantly exposed to an average concentration of 1 microgram per cubic meter of the specific substance. Multiplying the Unit Risk of a compound by its concentration in micrograms per cubic meter gives its cancer risk per million

SOURCE: BAAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants 2002 Annual Report (BAAQMD, 2004).

measure DPM. The levels at residences and other sensitive receptors are usually not as high as the levels reported in the table, since they tend to not be located as close to the sources of pollution as the monitor station.

Table 4.7-1 also shows the carcinogenic health risks from exposure to these TAC concentrations. The health risks were estimated by applying the cancer unit risk factors to the measured

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.7-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Health concentrations of the pollutants. The Unit Risk Values are established by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The potential total risk calculated from the measured ambient concentrations of TACs at the Crockett station is estimated to be 139 in a million. A large portion of the cancer risk is due to benzene and 1,3-butadiene, which are emitted principally from motor vehicle exhaust. These risks are comparable to the Bay Area average of 162 in a million (BAAQMD, 2004).

The BAAQMD has reported that there has been a decline in cancer risk in the region over the last decade, mainly because of the decline in the ambient benzene levels with the advent of Phase 2 reformulated gasolines. Phase 2 gasolines have considerably lower concentrations of benzene and other related aromatic compounds. As a result, the calculated cancer risk of 162 in one million for the region is about 45 percent lower than the risk that was estimated seven years earlier.

However, the risks do not include the entire risk from TACs, mainly because not all of the species contained in DPM are represented. DPM is a mixture of over 30 different toxic chemicals, and only a portion, mainly polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), may be reflected in the measurements reported in Table 4.7-1. The BAAQMD has estimated that the carcinogenic health risks from exposure to DPM in 2000 in the Bay Area region was about 450 in a million (BAAQMD, 2001). These region-wide risks were estimated by deriving concentrations of diesel PM from ambient measurements of a surrogate compound. Most of the DPM risks are from exposure to exhaust from diesel trucks where the emission sources can be relatively close to receptors.

A group of pollutants that have not been routinely monitored in ambient air are polychlorinated dioxins and furans, which are referred to as dioxins and furans. Monitoring of dioxins has recently begun at stations in Crockett, Livermore, Oakland, Richmond, San Jose, and San Francisco. The measured levels of dioxins and furans at the Crockett station are also reported in Table 4.7-1.

4.7.2.2 Regulatory Setting TACs are regulated under both State and federal laws. Federal laws use the term “Hazardous Air Pollutants” (HAPs) to refer to the same types of compounds that are referred to as TACs under California law. Both categories include essentially the same compounds. Under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, approximately 190 substances are regulated as HAPs.

With respect to State law, in 1983 the California legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1807 (AB 1807), which establishes a process for identifying toxic air contaminants and provides the authority for developing retrofit air toxics control measures on a Statewide basis. Air toxics are also regulated by another State law, the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987, Assembly Bill 2588 (AB 2588). Under AB 2588, TACs from individual facilities are required to be quantified by the facility and reported to the local air pollution control agency. The facilities are prioritized by the local agencies based on the quantity and toxicity of these emissions, and their proximity to areas where the public may be exposed. High priority facilities

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.7-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Health are required to perform a health risk assessment, and if specific risk thresholds are exceeded, they are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings. Depending on the health risk levels, emitting facilities can be required to implement varying levels of risk reduction measures.

BAAQMD is responsible for administering federal and State regulations related to TACs. Under federal law, these regulations include National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) and Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for affected sources. BAAQMD also administers the State regulations AB 1807 and AB 2588, which were discussed above. In addition, the BAAQMD requires that new or modified facilities, which emit TACs, have to perform air toxics screening analyses for the new stationary sources as part of the permit application. In addition, CEQA requires that sources of TACs from transportation related to the Proposed Project be included when assessing the health risks. These sources include diesel fueled vehicles related to both construction and operation of the Proposed Project.

4.7.3 Significance Criteria and Methodology Based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, a project would have significant adverse impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials or air quality if it meets certain specific criteria. Not explicitly listed in the Guidelines is the potential risk to the public of contracting cancer or of having adverse health effects from exposure to toxic air contaminants, an issue that is an air quality concern and a hazard. This section considers the significance of health risks from the Proposed Project in light of the risk to the public of contracting cancer from exposure to the TACs or of having adverse health effects from exposure to noncarcinogenic TACs that are emitted by construction and operation of a project.

4.7.3.1 Significance Criteria

Cancer Risk Cancer risk is defined as the lifetime probability of developing cancer from exposure to carcinogenic substances. Cancer risks are expressed as increased chances in one million of contracting cancer, and it often incorporates more than one exposure pathway (e.g., inhalation, dermal contact, ingestion of contaminated soil, and infant ingestion of breast milk due to the mother’s cumulative exposure). Overall cancer risks are determined by summing the individual risk for each pathway and for each TAC.

The accepted significance threshold for the maximum lifetime cancer risk has been established by several regulations and agencies to be 10 in one million. This includes the regulation under AB 2588, as well as Proposition 65, both of which require public notification if the incremental risk equals or exceeds 10 in one million. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines also recommend that the significance threshold for the cancer risk from a project be 10 in a million.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.7-4 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Health

Non-Cancer Health Risk Non-cancer adverse health risks are measured against a hazard index, which is the ratio of the predicted exposure concentration to a threshold level that was established by OEHHA as potentially causing adverse health effects. The ratios (Hazard Index, HI) of non-carcinogenic substances affecting a certain organ system are summed to produce an overall HI for that organ system. Overall hazard indices are calculated for each organ system. If the overall HI for the highest-impacted organ system exceeds one, then the impact would be significant. The HI significance threshold of one is defined in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and is consistent with the value requiring public notification in the AB 2588 regulation and in Proposition 65.

4.7.3.2 Methodology Incremental health risks from the Proposed Project were determined by estimating TAC emissions from the Proposed Project and conducting multi-pathway exposure modeling of the TAC emissions both for project construction and for project operations. The modeling was conducted following a protocol established by BAAQMD and satisfying the requirements of CEQA (ERM, 2006). The emissions calculations and the model runs were peer-reviewed prior to including the results in this EIR.

4.7.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact 4.7-1: Construction activities from the Proposed Project would increase emissions of TACs, mainly from diesel-operated equipment. Modeling these emissions indicates that predicted offsite concentrations of TACs would be less than the CEQA significance threshold. This would be a less-than-significant impact.

TAC emissions during construction would include DPM, mainly from trucks, because emissions would occur nearest to offsite receptors when the trucks would deliver equipment to and from the construction site. The impacts from trucks would be the greatest, because they would travel closer to offsite receptors; whereas other construction equipment would be onsite and farther away from sensitive receptors. Based on preliminary construction schedules and activities, it was estimated that there would be about 1,012 truck trips during peak construction. DPM emissions were calculated for these truck trips using the CARB emission model EMFAC2002. These emissions were input to the model ISCST3 to calculate offsite concentrations. The Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Project construction analyzed cancer, chronic noncancer, and acute health impacts from the diesel trucks that would be involved in the construction of the Proposed Project. These trucks were modeled as volume sources along San Pablo Avenue from the southern boundary of the Refinery, north to and along Cummings Skyway to I-80. The results of the Health Risk Assessment are summarized in Table 4.7-2.

The maximum cancer and maximum chronic noncancer health risks shown in Table 4.7-2 were predicted at the same location: along the property boundary on the north side of the Refinery. The reported maximum impacts that would occur during construction are well below the CEQA

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.7-5 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Health

TABLE 4.7-2 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HEALTH RISK FROM PROJECT CONSTRUCTION

Cancer Risk Chronic Acute Type of Estimated Health Impact (per million) Hazard Index Hazard Index

Maximum Exposed Individual Worker 0.0123 7.70E-05 1.11E-03 Maximum Exposed Individual Residential (MEIR) 566185E, 0.099 6.22E-05 4.88E-04 4211393N Maximum Offsite Carcinogenic Risk (Nonresidence) 0.123 – – Maximum Chronic Noncancer Hazard Index – 7.70E-05 – Maximum Acute Noncancer Hazard Index – – 1.11E-03

significance thresholds. The cancer health effects were modeled assuming that construction emissions would occur for a 70-year period, even though the construction period would last no more than 2 years; thus these results are very conservative. These levels would be well below the significance thresholds, and the impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.

Impact 4.7-2: Public exposure to TAC emissions from operations of the Proposed Project would result in an increase in health risks. The increases in health risks would result from exposure to carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic substances. Because the magnitudes of both the noncancer and cancer risks fall below the identified significance criteria values, the increases in health risks from the operations of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

TAC emission estimates for the stationary sources related to Proposed Project operations are provided in Table 4.7-3. These emissions, as reported in the Authority to Construct (ATC) Application to the BAAQMD, are compared to trigger levels established by BAAQMD (BAAQMD, 2005). If a trigger level is exceeded, then a site specific health risk assessment would be required.

TABLE 4.7-3 SUMMARY OF TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES RELATED TO PROJECT OPERATIONS

Annual Emissions

Substance Total Annual Emissions (lb/yr)a BAAQMD Trigger Level (lb/yr)

Acenaphthene 2.49E-02 NA Acenaphthylene 1.63E-02 NA Acetaldehyde 1.61E+02 6.4E+01 Acrolein 4.69E-02 2.3E+00 Ammonia 5.72E+04 7.7E+03 Antimony 5.45E+00 7.7E+00 Arsenic 8.96E+00 1.2E-02

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.7-6 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Health

TABLE 4.7-3 (continued) SUMMARY OF TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES RELATED TO PROJECT OPERATIONS

Annual Emissions

Substance Total Annual Emissions (lb/yr)a BAAQMD Trigger Level (lb/yr)

Benzene 1.01E+03 6.4E+00 Benzo(a)anthraceneb 3.38E-01 1.1E-02 Benzo(a)pyreneb 9.44E-01 1.1E-02 Benzo(b)fluorantheneb 4.26E-01 1.1E-02 Benzo(k)fluorantheneb 2.54E-01 1.1E-02 1,3-Butadiene 4.84E+00 NA Cadmium 1.04E+01 4.5E-02 Chlorine 3.95E-02 NA Chloroform 9.97E+00 NA Chromium (Total) 1.13E+01 1.3E-03 Chrysene 1.72E-02 NA Copper 4.44E+01 9.3E+01 Cyclohexane 1.59E+02 NA Ethylbenzene 4.43E+02 7.7E+04 Fluoranthene 3.22E-02 NA Fluorene 1.14E-01 NA Formaldehyde 1.17E+03 3.0E+01 n-Hexane 1.75E+03 2.7E+05 1,2,3,4,7,8 –HxCDDc 1.11E-06 5.7E-07 1,2,3,6,7,8- HxCDDc 2.72E-06 5.7E-07 1,2,3,7,8,9- HxCDDc 1.79E-06 5.7E-07 1,2,3,4,7,8 –HxCDFc 1.52E-05 5.7E-07 1,2,3,6,7,8- HxCDFc 1.15E-05 5.7E-07 2,3,4,6,7,8- HxCDFc 1.00E-05 5.7E-07 1,2,3,7,8,9- HxCDFc 1.40E-06 5.7E-07 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- HpCDDc 9.73E-06 5.7E-07 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- HpCDFc 5.14E-05 5.7E-07 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- HpCDFc 4.66E-06 5.7E-07 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrenec 1.09E+00 1.1E-02 Lead 5.15E+01 5.4E+00 Manganese 7.17E+01 7.7E+00 Mercury 1.90E+00 5.6E-01 Methanol 1.75E+04 NA Naphthalene 1.49E+01 5.3E+00 Nickel 9.92E+01 7.3E-01 OCDDc 4.90E-06 5.7E-07 OCDFc 1.21E-05 5.7E-07 PCBs (Total) 4.44E-03 2.8E-02 1,2,3,7,8 -PeCDD 9.19E-07 5.7E-07 1,2,3,7,8 -PeCDF 5.51E-06 5.7E-07 2,3,4,7,8 -PeCDF 7.51E-06 5.7E-07 Phenanthrene 1.54E-01 NA Phenol 5.93E+01 7.7E+03

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.7-7 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Public Health

TABLE 4.7-3 (continued) SUMMARY OF TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES RELATED TO PROJECT OPERATIONS

Annual Emissions

Substance Total Annual Emissions (lb/yr)a BAAQMD Trigger Level (lb/yr)

Propylene 3.43E+01 1.2E+05 Pyrene 2.61E-02 NA Selenium 2.06E-01 7.7E+02 Silver 1.70E+01 NA 2,3,7,8-TCDD 5.12E-08 5.7E-07 2,3,7,8-TCDF 1.95E-06 5.7E-07 Toluene 1.93E+03 1.2E+04 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1.82E+02 NA Xylene (Total) 9.80E+02 2.7E+04 Zinc 2.19E+02 1.4E+03

a Bold values indicate emissions over the BAAQMD trigger levels. b These substances are different polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) isomers that have OEHHA-developed Potency Equivalency Factors. These individual PAHs should be evaluated as equivalents to the benzo(a)pyrene isomer. This evaluation process consists of multiplying individual PAH-specific emission levels with their Potency Equivalency Factor, which are listed in footnote 9 of Table 2-5-1 of BAAQMD Rule 2-5. The sum of these products is the benzo(a)pyrene-equivalent level and should be compared to the benzo(a)pyrene- equivalent trigger level of 1.1E-02 lb/year. Collectively, the PAHs in Table 2 exceed this level. c These substances are different polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioixns (“dioxins”) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (“furans”) congeners that have OEHHA-adopted Toxicity Equivalency Factors. These individual dioxin/furan congeners should be evaluated as equivalents to the 2,3,7,8-tetracholorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) congener. This evaluation process consists of multiplying individual congener-specific emission levels with their Toxicity Equivalency Factor, which are listed in footnote 8 of Table 2-5-1 of BAAQMD Rule 2-5. The sum of these products is the 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalent level and should be compared to the 2,3,7,8-TCDD-equivalent trigger level of 5.7E-07 lb/year. Collectively, the dioxins/furans in Table 2 exceed this level.

SOURCE: ERM, 2006

In addition to stationary source emissions from the Proposed Project, there would be both decreases and increases in mobile source activity from the transporting of materials and products to and from the Refinery. There would be a net decrease in marine traffic (See Table 3-5 in Section 3). There would be an increase of up to three railcars delivered to the site each day and locomotive emissions would increase over existing conditions (See Impact discussion 4.2-2 in Air Quality). There would also be a net increase of 9.2 truck visits per day. Near the Proposed Project site the trucks would travel on San Pablo Avenue and Cummings Skyway. DPM emissions from heavy-duty trucks were calculated by using the ARB emissions model EMFAC2002. These emissions calculations are reported in Appendix PH-1 of the Public Health Supplement provided by ConocoPhillips (ERM, 2006). TAC emissions from diesel trucks that would transport materials were included in the CEQA HRA. These are the only mobile sources that are included in this HRA.

TAC emissions from stationary and mobile sources related to the Proposed Project were modeled using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) model ISCST3, along with onsite meteorology, to calculate worst-case concentrations from the Proposed Project at offsite receptors. The incremental health risks at key receptors were then estimated by applying the

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.7-8 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Health

California Environmental Protection Agency -approved health risk assessment model HARP (CARB, 2003) to the calculated ambient concentrations.

The results of the Health Risk Assessment for operations are summarized in Table 4.7-4. The table shows that the maximum offsite incremental cancer risk to be 2.88 in one million, located north of the property boundary. The maximum incremental cancer risk at an offsite residential location is estimated to be 1.45 in one million. These increments are less than the significance threshold of 10 in one million. Table 4.7-4 also shows that the acute and chronic hazard indices for exposure to non-carcinogens are well below the Hazard Index value of “one,” the significance threshold. Therefore, the incremental health risks from Proposed Project operations would be less than significant.

TABLE 4.7-4 SUMMARY OF INCREMENTAL HEALTH RISKS FROM PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONS

Cancer Risk Chronic Acute Type of Estimated Health Impact (per million) Hazard Index Hazard Index

Maximum Exposed Individual Worker 0.548 2.06E-2 9.61E-3 Maximum Offsite Impact (Residence) 1.45 7.94E-3 9.23E-3 Maximum Offsite Impact (Nonresidence) 2.88 – – Maximum Chronic Noncancer Hazard Index – 2.07E-2 – Maximum Acute Noncancer Hazard Index – – 3.82E-2

SOURCE: ERM, June 2006

Mitigation: None required.

4.7.5 Cumulative Impacts

Impact 4.7-3: Public exposure to toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions from the Proposed Project and from other projects or cumulative development could result in a slight increase in health risks in the region. However, the Proposed Project’s increases in health risks are very low, and combined with other projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact.

Cumulative effects to public health could occur if TAC emissions from the Proposed Project were to combine with TAC emissions from one or more specific cumulative projects in the region to cause a cumulative health impact. Chapter 5 of this EIR, CEQA Statutory Sections, identifies cumulative projects that would occur in the region. They include other projects that may occur in the future at the ConocoPhillips facility, cumulative industrial projects expected to occur at other facilities in the region, and residential projects expected to occur in nearby communities.

Most of the cumulative ConocoPhillips projects at the Refinery that are identified in Section 5.2.3, Specific Projects Considered in the Cumulative Analysis, were included and evaluated

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.7-9 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Health previously in an EIR for the ULSD Project (ConocoPhillips, 2003). A worst case assumption would be that the maximum impact from the ConocoPhillips cumulative projects would occur at the same location as the maximum impact predicted for the Proposed Project. Under such a worst case condition, the total incremental cumulative impact cancer risk would be 0.8 in one million plus 2.9 in one million, or 3.7 in one million. Since this impact is less than the significance threshold of 10 in one million, the cumulative impact would be less than significant.

The cumulative projects at other industrial facilities in the region identified in Section 5.2.3 are located at least 3 to 5 miles away from the ConocoPhillips facility. TAC emissions from cumulative projects at these facilities are too far away to result in cumulative concentrations that would result in significant impacts. Thus, cumulative impacts from other industrial facilities would be less than significant.

The residential projects identified in Section 5.2.3 include those planned for nearby Hercules. These projects are not sources of TACs and therefore would not cumulatively contribute to TAC emissions from the Proposed Project. Thus, cumulative health impacts from future residential projects in the region would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.

______

References – Public Health Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Toxic Air Contaminants 2002 Annual Report, 2004.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Regulation 2, Rule 5, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants, 2005.

California Air Resources Board, HARP User Guide, December 2003.

ConocoPhillips, ULSD/Strategic Modernization Project, Final Environmental Impact Report, November 2003.

ERM, Rodeo Clean Fuels Expansion Project Public Health Supplement, June 2006.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.7-10 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4.8 Public Safety

Accidents or accidental releases of hazardous substances could result during construction of the Proposed Project. These could create a hazard to the public or the environment through exposure to hazardous materials, through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, or by an increased risk of fatality or serious injury. These impacts would be less than significant. Accidental releases of acutely hazardous substances may result under the operation of the Proposed Project. These could create a hazard to the public or the environment through exposure to hazardous materials from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. However, the potential releases would not cause an unhealthful offsite impact to occur within the expected 30-year life of the plant. These impacts would therefore be less than significant.

4.8.1 Introduction Refinery operations involve the processing and handling of substances that are classified as combustible and/or flammable with the potential for fires and explosions. Refinery operations also involve the processing and handling of substances that are acutely toxic with the potential of releasing toxic vapors. The risk to the public is measured in terms of the likelihood or probability of an accident and the severity of the consequences of any such accident. Refinery practices that handle these substances are subjected to strict process safety management programs to prevent and mitigate potential accidents.

In addition, the Refinery generates hazardous wastes that are subject to regulations covering the safe storage and disposal of these wastes. The Public Safety Section in this EIR addresses issues similar to those in the 2003 EIR that was prepared for the ConocoPhillips ULSD/Strategic Modernization Project at the same refinery.

4.8.2 Setting The ConocoPhillips Refinery is in an area where buffer zones have been established around sources of hazardous substances. The Refinery is bounded by undeveloped open space to the east. Northeast of the Refinery are industrial and open spaces. Immediately south of the active area of the Refinery is a 300- to 600-foot undeveloped area which is maintained as a buffer between the Refinery and the Bayo Vista residential area. The Bayo Vista area contains the sensitive receptors nearest to the active area of the Refinery; the closest is a day care center, located approximately 0.4 mile south of the site of the nearest Proposed Project element. The former Hillcrest School in Rodeo, which overlooked the Refinery, was relocated farther away as a result of a bond issue that was passed in 2002.

4.8.2.1 General Refinery Hazards Oil refineries handle, store and process large quantities of flammable materials and acutely toxic substances. Accidents related to these substances can result in public exposure to heat radiation

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety from a fire, blast overpressure from an explosion, or exposure to airborne acutely hazardous substances. These hazards can occur from operations at the Refinery and from transportation of hazardous materials to and from the Refinery.

Fires, which are caused by ignition of flammable materials, can result in exposure to heat radiation. The heat decreases rapidly with distance from the flame. Refinery fires generally pose little risk to the public, mainly because they are typically confined to the vicinity of the equipment from which the flammable release occurs.

Explosions can occur if flammable vapors and gases are ignited or when a flammable substance is released at high temperatures, and usually under elevated pressure. Impacts of an explosion are expressed in terms of a sudden increase in pressure above ambient pressure, resulting from a blast or shock wave. The types of explosions associated with refineries can include a vapor cloud explosion (VCE) and a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE). A VCE occurs when a flammable gas is mixed with air and then encounters an ignition source. VCEs are very rare, because they require that sufficient air be combined with the flammable gas before ignition, thus resulting in an explosive mixture. Instead, a more common event would be a flash fire in which ignition occurs before mixing with atmospheric air. Such fires do not result in an explosion which could cause damaging overpressure. A BLEVE would occur when a confined flammable liquid vessel ruptures from excess pressure because of heating. The result is a rapid expansion of the material as it is exposed to ambient pressure and subsequent ignition of the released liquid aerosol and vapors. Such an event can occur if there is an external fire that engulfs a vessel containing a flammable liquid. BLEVEs are also very rare.

Exposure to airborne toxic materials can occur with a release from the Refinery of a substance that is acutely hazardous, such as ammonia, hydrogen sulfide or sulfur dioxide, or any harmful byproducts which may occur from a fire. A release can be a threat if a harmful concentration of the gas reaches offsite receptors.

4.8.2.2 Existing Conditions

Hazardous Substances Handled at the Refinery The ConocoPhillips Refinery is on the Government Code § 65962.5 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) list of hazardous waste generators. Wastes generated are stored and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Hazardous wastes are manifested and shipped to approved, permitted facilities. The Refinery generates approximately 30 tons of non-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Hazardous Waste (e.g., oily trash, sand blast grit), over the period between turnarounds. The period between turnarounds is approximately two to three years. The facility generates approximately 800,000 pounds of spent nickel/molybdenum catalyst and 30,000 pounds of spent cobalt/molybdenum catalyst, which are removed every 30 to 36 months (at the end of the useful life of the material). These materials are considered hazardous under RCRA. However, the spent catalyst is sent offsite where it is processed to reclaim and regenerate the material, and thus is not considered a waste.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety

Existing Safety Management Systems The ConocoPhillips Refinery stores and processes materials classified as acutely toxic and flammable, which could pose hazards during process upset conditions. Historically, the petroleum industry has addressed concerns about potential catastrophic accidents by developing design standards intended to minimize either the likelihood of these events and their consequences. In recent years, federal and State regulations have taken an increasingly active role in requiring facilities to assess and document these risks as well as take further action to reduce them. Following is a brief description of the how the Refinery addresses safety issues.

Design As an industrial facility that handles hazardous chemicals, the ConocoPhillips Refinery must be constructed and operated in accordance with certain codes and standards, which are enforced via administrative mechanisms such as internal audits, design reviews, and building inspections. Some of the main design standards include: the American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 750, Codes of Management Practices of the Chemical Manufacturers, American National Standards Institute B31.1: Power Piping, American National Standards Institute B13.3: Petroleum Refinery Piping, National Fire Prevention Association 30, and the Uniform Building Codes.

Inspections In order to ensure integrity, safety and regulatory compliance, the ConocoPhillips Refinery maintains and conducts various inspection programs. These programs are carried out by the Engineering Inspection Department using techniques recognized and accepted by the petroleum industry. Also, the operations, maintenance, and staff departments conduct various safety and regulatory compliance inspections and audits.

The Engineering Inspection Program utilizes visual and non-destructive testing methods to inspect affected equipment for damage and deterioration. In addition, the program requires the maintenance of written records of all inspections of affected equipment. The Program covers a variety of plant equipment including tanks, pressure vessels, piping, relief valves, and other related components. The program provides for a planned inspection of new equipment prior to Refinery acceptance, as well as of existing onsite equipment.

Training The Refinery conducts a safety-training program for all employees. New employees are given safety indoctrinations, and affected employees receive annual refresher training in the following areas:

• Injury reporting procedures; • Emergency reporting and notification procedures; • Safety hazard reporting procedures; • Use of personal protective equipment; • Location and use of respiratory equipment; • Location and use of fire hoses and hand-held fire extinguishers; • Safety procedures to be used in the event of a release or potential release of a hazardous material;

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety

• Chemicals and wastes present at the facility and their associated hazards; • Information labels, forms, and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS); • Proper methods of handling hazardous materials; • Reporting of adverse health and environmental effects; • Use, capabilities, and locations of emergency response equipment and supplies; • The facility’s Emergency Response Plan; • Procedures for the control of a toxic and hazardous materials release; • Procedures for coordinating with emergency response organizations; and • Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) HAZWOPER training.

In addition to safety training, an operator-training program is conducted at the Refinery to ensure operator competence. The program provides training in policies and procedures, safety and health hazards, and task specific procedures and practices. All operator trainees must successfully complete a Basic Training Program, prior to working as an operator. The program includes basic training in the areas of distillation, refining, chemistry, physics, environmental screening, maintenance, instrumentation, and specific safety hazards. Once a trainee has completed the Basic Training Program, assignment to an operating area is made and the Process Foreman continues the instruction of the trainee.

When new equipment or processes are installed, the Process Foreman conducts training sessions similar to those given to operator trainees, to familiarize the trainees with the new equipment and/or processes. Training records are maintained for all operators.

Process Safety Management (PSM) The Federal OSHA adopted a rule in 1992 known as Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, which addresses the prevention of catastrophic accidents. The requirements of the Process Safety Management rules are directed primarily at protecting workers within a facility. One of the key components of the required Process Safety Management systems is the performance of process hazard analyses, which are assessments used to anticipate causes of potential accidents and to improve safeguards to prevent these accidents.

Management of Change (MOC) In order to comply with the Process Safety Management requirements, the ConocoPhillips Refinery has established procedures for the Management of Change (MOC). The purpose of these procedures is to ensure that changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, facilities, or critical procedures do not cause plant facilities to be operated outside of their design limits or introduce new hazards to plant operations.

Applicable requirements of the MOC may include an environmental review, health & safety/loss control review, process hazards analysis, project field safety check, HAZCOM Review/MSDS update, new or revised procedures, operator training, operating manual update, maintenance records update, equipment inspection update, process flow diagram update, piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) update, electrical drawing update, instrument loop sheet update, or other requirements deemed necessary by the reviewing engineers.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-4 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety

Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Control Plan (SPCC) In compliance with the U.S. Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, the Refinery maintains a Facility Response Plan and Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Control Plan (SPCC) for existing operations. This plan is updated every three years.

Risk Management Plan The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments require that facilities utilizing Extremely Hazardous Materials in amounts over specific threshold quantities prepare a Risk Management Plan (RMP). California’s version of the Federal Risk Management Program is called the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program, and it was finalized in 1997. The Refinery’s RMP in compliance with the CalARP Program includes three main components: (1) hazard assessment; (2) release prevention planning; and (3) emergency response planning. The RMP is updated when there are changes that would affect the use or storage of acutely hazardous substances. Upon completion of the Proposed Project, the RMP would be updated. In addition, the Hazardous Materials Business Plan that provides input to the RMP would have to be updated.

County Industrial Safety Ordinance Because incidents have occurred at industrial facilities in Contra Costa County since the adoption of State and federal safety programs, the County adopted Ordinance No. 98-48 and Amendments, the “Industrial Safety Ordinance”, as Regulation 450-8 of the County Code of Regulations to “supplement the requirements of California Health and Safety Code… concerning hazardous materials management by enacting measures to prevent and reduce the probability of accidental releases of regulated substances that have the potential to cause significant harm to the public health and to increase participation by industry and the public to improve accident prevention.” This regulation requires reviews, inspections, and audits that supplement existing federal and State safety programs and the imposition of additional safety measures to protect public health from accidental releases.

Emergency Response Capabilities An Emergency Response Plan is in place for the Refinery to ensure that, in the event of a fire, hazardous material release, medical emergency, or rescue situation, Refinery personnel would be able to respond to the emergency quickly and effectively so that personal injuries, environmental damage, and/or property damage can be minimized. The Emergency Response Plan describes the responsibilities of all facility personnel in the event of an emergency. Additionally, the plan defines the types of actions that personnel with different levels of training may take in response to an emergency. Furthermore, the plan describes and defines the chain of command to be followed by personnel in an emergency. The primary responsibility for implementing the plan rests with ConocoPhillips, not with an outside agency.

Emergency response teams at the Refinery are trained and equipped to respond to fires, rescues, hazardous material releases, and other emergencies that could occur. These teams are managed by the Supervisor of Safety and Emergency Response, whose responsibility it is to ensure that the Emergency Response Plan is implemented and followed in the preparation for, and response to plant emergencies.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-5 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety

In the event of a release of hazardous materials, the emergency coordinator identifies the nature, source, amount, and affected area of the release. Additionally, the coordinator assesses the hazards to both human health and the environment as a result of the release. It is the responsibility of the coordinator to notify local authorities, as needed, and regulatory agencies, as required by law and the County General Plan, which requires that all facilities adopt an emergency response plan that includes immediate notification of the public.

ConocoPhillips is also a member of a mutual aid organization under which facilities with emergency response capabilities agree to assist each other. In order to maintain readiness, Refinery staff participate in monthly meetings and regular response drills.

4.8.2.3 Accident History Accidents that have occurred at the Refinery in the past five years are summarized below:

• On 6/27/2001, a 1.2-barrel gasoline leak from line 101 was the result of localized external seawater corrosion on the underside of the pipe. All appropriate agencies were notified. The entire low-lying section of line 101 has been replaced.

• On 5/31/2002, between 5:00 AM and 7:00 AM, a process upset occurred at the Hydrogen Purification section of the Unicracker Unit 240. A spray of liquid catacarb solution (approximately 388 lbs) was released in the form of aerosol droplets to the atmosphere from the B-401 stack. Contra Costa Health Services and Refinery Health & Safety staff found no evidence to indicate any health or significant offsite impact. There were no injuries reported.

• On 7/10/2002 at approximately 3:36 PM, the A Turbine located at the Steam Power Plant unexpectedly shut down. This was followed by an unexpected shutdown of the C Turbine. The Refinery’s other turbine (Turbine B) had shut down unexpectedly earlier in the morning and was being prepared for restart. The Refinery’s other source of steam, the B-1 Boiler, had previously been taken out of service. The outage of all 3 turbines in this situation resulted in a Refinery-wide loss of steam production. When this occurred, a plant-wide shut down of all operating units was initiated in accordance with procedures. A Community Warning System level 2 was initiated. As a precautionary measure the Refinery requested an upgrade of the Community Warning System to a level 3, shelter-in-place for the Crockett area only, due to the smoke direction from the flare. No injuries were reported within 24 hours of the end of the flaring event.

• On 10/31/2004 at approximately 3:50 AM, a precautionary shelter-in-place was initiated after an inadvertent release caused odors outside the Refinery. Live piping containing sour flare gas was accidentally opened to the atmosphere. The accidental opening occurred during preparation for maintenance while blinding was being installed to ensure equipment isolation. Practices and procedures regarding blind installation have been revised and require that blind installation locations be marked with an identification tag.

• On 5/1/2006 at approximately 10:05 AM, a shelter-in-place was initiated for the community due to visible smoke from the flare after a loss of steam from “C” turbine. Prior to the shelter in place at approximately 9:47 AM, the PG&E electrical supply breaker to the “C” electrical distribution bus transformer was disconnected to perform maintenance on the transformer. The electricity for the “C” distribution bus was then supplied solely (islanded) by the “C” Gas Turbine Generator (GTG). The “C” GTG tripped off line, de-energizing the “C” bus and simultaneously reducing the steam production rate. The loss of electrical power caused some

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-6 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety

process unit and equipment shutdowns which resulted in flaring. Refinery operators restarted critical equipment, increased alternative steam production, and restored sufficient steam supply to the flare to prevent smoking. The duration of the flare smoking was approximately 10 minutes. The shelter-in-place was lifted at 11:15 AM. No injuries were reported within 24 hours of the flaring event.

4.8.2.4 Applicable Regulations There are a number of federal, State and County regulations that focus on reducing the risks from chemical hazards, some of which include:

• California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program; • U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Process Safety Management (PSM) Rule; • U.S. Environmental Protection Act (US EPA) Accidental Release Prevention/Risk Management Plan (RMP) Rule; • California OSHA Injury and Illness Prevention Program; and • Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance. These regulations require that facilities assess the potential for accidental releases of acutely hazardous substances, and programs must be established to minimize the frequency and extent of accidental releases. The regulations are geared to protect both workers and the general public.

After installation of the Proposed Project components at the Refinery, a revised RMP would be carried out to satisfy the CalARP Program. The RMP must include:

• A detailed hazard and operability study (HAZOP) of the changed components; • A revised offsite consequence analysis of plausible accidents; and, • A revised accident prevention and training program, as well as pre-startup safety reviews and safety requirements for contractors conducting hot work activities (such as welding activities or other work requiring heat protection for workers). The RMP would cover accidents that might result from the Proposed Project by building on the prior risk analyses carried out for the existing equipment.

4.8.3 Significance Criteria, Methodology and Discussion of No Impact

4.8.3.1 Significance Criteria The significance criteria for this analysis were developed from criteria presented in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G. The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to public safety if it would: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-7 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. d) Be located on a site that is identified on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, the project would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. f) For a project located within two miles of a private airstrip, the project would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. g) Impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Exposure of the public to air emission hazards associated with routine operations of the Proposed Project is addressed in Section 4.7, Public Health. That analysis concludes that public exposure to toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions from the Proposed Project would result in an increase in health risks, but because the magnitudes of both the non-cancer and cancer-related risks would fall below the identified significance criteria values, the increases in health risks from the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

4.8.3.2 Discussion of No Impacts Review and comparison of the setting circumstances and Proposed Project characteristics with each of the eleven significance criteria stated above, clearly show that no impacts would result with respect to the following eight issues. The following discusses the reasoning supporting this conclusion: c. Would the Proposed Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

The Proposed Project would be entirely within the existing Refinery and would not be within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. There would be no impact. d. Would the Proposed Project be located on a site that is identified on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-8 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety

Government Code Section 65962.5 is commonly referred to as the “Cortese List”. The Proposed Project would be constructed entirely within the existing Refinery, where no public access is allowed. Within the Refinery process areas, various levels of contamination by hazardous materials may exist, however, as discussed in detail in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the movement of these hazardous materials offsite is prevented by structural and procedural control measures. For these reasons, the presence or absence of hazardous materials on the site would not result in risks to the public or to the environment. Therefore there would be no impact. e. Would the Proposed Project be located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport, and therefore result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

The Proposed Project site is not within an airport land use plan nor is it within two miles of a public airport. The Proposed Project would not result in an airport or aircraft-related safety hazard for people within the project area. Therefore, there would be no impact. f. Would the Proposed Project be located within two miles of a private airstrip, and therefore result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

The Proposed Project is not located within two miles of a private airstrip. The Proposed Project would not result in an aiport or aircraft-related safety hazard for people within the project area. Therefore, there would be no impact. g. Would the Proposed Project impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

As described in Section 4.8.2, above, the Proposed Project would have to be integrated into the operation of the Refinery. This integration would include the development of internal emergency response procedures appropriate to the Refinery, as well as include external coordination with the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Department. The internal integration and external coordination would eliminate interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, there would be no impact. h. Would the Proposed Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

The Proposed Project would be constructed entirely within the existing processing areas of the Refinery. These areas are barren or paved. The Refinery has its own fire protection measures, including buffers between the process areas and fence lines, but also is served by the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Department, as described in Section 4.12, Public Services. There would be no added exposure to wildland fire hazards. There would be no impacts from exposure to wildland fires.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-9 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety

There would be varying potentials for impacts to occur under the other two significance criteria listed above. These criteria are grouped and discussed generally under two broad impact statements, Impacts 4.8-1 and 4.8-2, in Section 4.8.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and Impact 4.8-3 in Section 4.8.5, Cumulative Impacts.

4.8.3.3 Analysis Methodology With regard to accidental releases of acutely hazardous materials, the significance of any potential upset or accident is judged both by the severity of the impact and its likelihood of occurrence. Methods such as the California Accidental Release Program that evaluate the likelihood (probability) of an accidental release are used with the severity of the offsite consequence to determine if the event would be significant. Figure 4.8-1 shows a matrix that combines the likelihood of a release with offsite consequence. An accidental release is judged to be significant if both the likelihood of the event and the offsite consequence are in the moderate or high category.

Frequent More than once

per year (0 to 1 years)

Periodic Once per decade

(1 to 10 years)

Occasional During facility

Occurrence lifetime (10 to 100 years)

Improbable

Likelihood or Frequency of Frequency or Likelihood (over 100 years)

Very Low Low Moderate High (no injury or damage) (minor injury or (moderate injury or (severe injury or damage) damage) fatality)

Consequence

These combinations of severity and likelihood identify situations of major concern that are considered to be significant.

ConocoPhillips CFEP Project Figure 4.8-1 Risk Matrix for Ranking Scenarios

Severity of an Accident Severity criteria must be defined separately for each type of consequence due to the physical differences in the effect of each. The types of accidents considered in this evaluation include toxic releases, fires, and explosions. These hypothetical accidents could result in potential toxic gas exposure, heat impacts, and blast consequences. In qualitative terms, the severity of these

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-10 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety consequences can be described as very low, low, moderate, and high. A very low severity includes consequences that can be detected but are not expected to result in even minor injury to the surrounding community. A low level of severity corresponds to minor irritation or injury. A moderate level of severity corresponds to moderate property damage or injury. A high level of severity corresponds to major damage, serious (i.e., irreversible) injury or fatality.

Specific criteria have been established to categorize impact severity for the types of consequences that could occur with the Proposed Project. These criteria are defined for toxic gas exposure, for exposure to thermal radiation, and for explosion effects. The severity criteria are applied to consequences determined for persons at or beyond the Refinery fence-line. The hazard evaluation criteria for these types of consequences are summarized in Table 4.8-1. As stated above, those impacts that are determined to be moderate to high in frequency and in offsite consequence would be considered significant.

TABLE 4.8-1 HAZARD EVALUATION CRITERIA

Criteria

Moderate High Very Low Low (moderate (severe (no injury or (minor injury injury or injury or Hazard damage) or damage) damage) fatality)

Blast (pounds per sq. inch, psi) < 0.5 0.5 to < 1.0 1.0 to < 2.3 ≥ 2.3 Thermal Impact (kilowatts per sq. meter, kW/m2) < 1.0 1.0 to < 5.0 5.0 to < 12.5 ≥ 12.5 Ammonia (parts per million, ppm) < 25 25 to < 150 150 to < 750 ≥750 Hydrogen Sulfide (parts per million, ppm) < 0.1 0.1 to < 30 30 to < 100 ≥100

NOTE: The lower threshold for a Moderate hazard is set at the RMP significance threshold for blast and thermal impacts and at the Emergency Response Planning Guideline (ERPG-2) concentration level for ammonia and hydrogen sulfide (AIHA, 2005). The ammonia stored is aqueous ammonia, and the exposure limits are for gaseous ammonia that evaporates from the solution. The ERPG exposure durations are one hour. ERPG levels may be replaced by new Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) which are under development by the National Research Council’s Committee on Toxicology. AEGLs will be developed for the 300+ extremely hazardous substances listed in Title III of the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act, including ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, and will establish levels for each of five exposure periods: 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 4 hours, and 8 hours.

Likelihood of an Accident The likelihood or the frequency of occurrence, shown in Figure 4.8-1, is expressed qualitatively as “Frequent”, “Periodic”, “Occasional”, “Improbable”, or “Remote”1 . In qualitative terms, “Frequent” refers to an event that is expected to occur about once a year. A “Periodic” event is one that might occur once per decade. An “Occasional” event is one that may occur once during the lifetime of a project. An “Improbable” event is one that may occur once every 100 to 10,000 years, and a “Remote” event is one that is unlikely to occur at all. The expected frequency for

1 “Remote” is not shown on Figure 4.8-1

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-11 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety each accident that could lead to moderate or high offsite consequences is given in Table 4.8-2, based on references that are footnoted in the table. The table deals with the various types of failures that can occur for equipment associated with refineries. These failure rates form the basis upon which specific risk scenarios related to the Proposed Project can be evaluated. The expected failure frequencies identified in Table 4.8-2 were applied to the accident scenarios that are presented and discussed later, in Impact 4.8-2 of Section 4.8.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, to determine the resulting significance of those accident scenarios. 4.8.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact 4.8-1: Possible accidents or accidental releases of hazardous substances could result during construction of the Proposed Project. These could create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, or by an increased risk of fatality or serious injury. These impacts would be less than significant.

Accidents or releases that could occur during the construction phase would be small-scale and would be confined to specific construction events. Demolition undertaken in preparation for construction of the Proposed Project would generate asbestos containing materials (ACM) consisting of approximately 1,000 cubic yards of insulation and approximately 1,800 gaskets. The removal, handling, transport, and disposal of the ACM would be performed in accordance with established procedures and applicable regulatory requirements, including US EPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation 11, Rule 2. The work would be performed and overseen by certified ACM workers. The ACM would be transported in covered vehicles and disposed of at appropriately licensed facilities. Construction of the Proposed Project would also generate approximately 65,000 pounds of lead paint-contaminated blasting grit from paint removal activities and several hundred paint containers from painting activities. As with ACM, these waste materials would be handled, stored, transported, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Since the construction activities would be conducted under the regulatory constraints stated above, which are geared to protect onsite workers and the offsite public, the impacts from the accidental release of hazardous substances during construction of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Given the nature and scale of the construction required to implement the Proposed Project, there is a risk of a construction-related accident that could result in a fatality or serious injury. The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was created to reduce workplace hazards and to implement safety and health programs. OSHA safety standards and regulations apply to work at construction projects, and establish employer obligations to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards. Projects of the scale of the Proposed Project typically involve only minor injuries, although serious injuries occasionally occur. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None Required.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-12 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety

TABLE 4.8-2 QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATES OF FAILURES THAT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO HAZARDOUS RELEASES RESULTING IN MODERATE OR HIGH OFFSITE CONSEQUENCES

Likelihood Scenario (Qualitative) Frequency

Equipment Improbable/ In the East Bay Area, the probability of an earthquake generating a ground motion of 0.5g failure from Remote or larger is about once per 475 years.a At the Refinery site, the probability would be earthquake slightly smaller. Lesser ground motions would occur more frequently. Approximately one in ten spherical vessels have failed for lateral accelerations >0.2g.b (Bullets/tanks are less vulnerable and would fail less frequently). The number of ruptures that result in explosions is approximately one in 40 based on relating data for catastrophic tank failures with explosions from catastrophic tank failures. The combined tank failure and explosion probability is estimated to be one per 40,000 years, assuming a return frequency of 100 years for 0.2g lateral accelerations.c,d Fires would be of higher probability but less than one per rupture. (The combined tank failure and fire frequency is approximately one per 1,000 years to one per 40,000 years.) Catastrophic Failure Frequency = 2.5E-05 / year. Tank or Improbable/ The estimated rate for a catastrophic tank failure is approximately one per 2,500 years.d vessel failure Remote Failures are primarily due to cracks. Catastrophic failures that result in explosions are (catastrophic) estimated to be one in 40c for a combined rate of one per 100,000 years. Fires would be of higher probability but less than one per rupture. (The combined fire and failure rate is approximately one per 2,500 years to one per 100,000 years). Catastrophic Failure Frequency = 1.0 E-05 / year. Pipe failure Improbable The event frequency is approximately once per 100 years but the pipe may not rupture.a from Assume the pipe failure rate in a maximum probable earthquake is one in ten as for earthquake tanks. The number of pipe failures that result in unconfined explosions is estimated to be one in ten (by relating failures and failures plus explosions) for a combined estimate of one per 10,000 years.c,d Fires would be of higher probability but less than one per rupture. (The combined fire and pipe failure rate is approximately one per 1,000 years to one per 10,000 years). Catastrophic Failure Frequency = 1.0 E-04 / year. Pipe failure Improbable The catastrophic pipe failure rated is approximately one per 1,000 years. The number of (catastrophic) explosions for pipeline failures is estimated to be an average of one per ten failures (by relating failures with failures plus explosions) for a combined one per 10,000 years.c,d Catastrophic Failure Frequency = 1.0 E-04 / year. Truck Improbable The incidence rate in the U.S. in 1998 for serious truck accident involving hazardous accident materials for which a release or injury occurs is approximately 0.0017 per million vehicle miles (computed from referencese,f,g). This rate is for large vehicles (greater than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight). Serious Hazardous Materials Large Truck Accident Frequency = 1.7 E-03 / million vehicle miles. Rail car Improbable Approximately 3% of train accidents involve hazardous materialsf while the serious accident hazardous material train accident rate is approximately 7 accidents per one million train- butane miles (computed from referencese,f). As the risk is for train-miles and not car-miles, adding additional butane tank cars to existing trains does not increase the risk of a rail accident when transporting additional butane from the facility.). Serious Hazardous Materials Train Accident Frequency = 7.1 / million train miles. Truck Improbable Human error rateh is about one per 2,000 operations. For an additional ammonia tanker connect/ per month there are 24 additional connect/disconnects per year. A bad disconnect connect/disconnect would therefore be expected once every 83 years. The likelihood of accident any connection release (small spill) is one in ten and of a larger release (200 gallons) is one in 40.h The approximate release rate for a bad hookup releasing a large quantity of ammonia is therefore about one per 3,300 years. Accident Frequency = 3.0 E-04 / year.

a Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California, Map Sheet 48, 1999. California Division of Mines and Geology. b A.I.Ch.E. “Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis,” 2000 c F. Lees, “Loss Prevention in Process Industries,” Vol 1, 1992 d A.I.Ch.E. “Process Equipment Reliability Data,” 1989 e Computed using data from U.S. DOT 2000 National Transportation Statistics f U.S. DOT, Hazardous Materials Safety, Hazardous Materials Information System, 2002 g FWHA-RD-89-013, “Present Practices of Highway Transportation of Highway Materials”, Harwood and Russell, 1989 h T. Kletz, “An Engineers View of Human Error,” 1985

FREQUENCY DEFINITIONS: Frequent: More than once per year (0 to 1 years) Periodic: Once per decade (1 to 10 years) Occasional: During the facility lifetime (10 to 100 years) Improbable: 100 to 10,000 years Remote: Not likely to occur at all

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-13 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety

Impact 4.8-2: Accidental releases of acutely hazardous substances may result under the operation of the Proposed Project. These could create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, or by an increased risk of fatality or serious injury. Impacts would therefore be less than significant.

Although no significant Proposed Project hazardous materials-related impacts have been identified, the Proposed Project would be incorporated into the Refinery “Process Safety Management System.” As part of this system, a Process Hazard analysis would be performed when the Proposed Project modifications were installed. In addition, the RMP would be revised to incorporate the proposed changes, and applicable training programs and plans dealing with emergencies would be modified to include the Proposed Project. These actions would ensure that the risk of accidents would be minimized.

Additionally, as is the case for current Refinery operations, Proposed Project hazardous materials/wastes truck traffic would be routed to and from the Refinery via Cummings Skyway to avoid traveling through the community of Rodeo.

Hazardous Materials from Operation of the Proposed Project The Proposed Project would result in increased storage and transportation of some hazardous materials, such as molten sulfur. The net changes of hazardous materials input and output from the Refinery resulting from the Proposed Project are shown in Tables 3-4 and 3-5 of Chapter 3, Project Description.

The Proposed Project would use aqueous ammonia (a dilute solution of 19 to 19.5 percent ammonia and 80.5 to 81 percent water) in Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) systems to control nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from the new heaters. Proposed Project operations would increase the number of SCR systems at the Refinery and consequently increase the quantities of aqueous ammonia transported and used. ConocoPhillips discontinued the use of anhydrous (pure) ammonia at the Refinery several years ago, as part of its Good Neighbor Agreement. The dilute aqueous ammonia poses lower potential risks than the anhydrous form.

Spent catalyst must periodically be replaced. The catalyst in the new heavy gas oil (HGO) Hydrocracking reactors would need replacement every one to five years. On an annualized basis, 250,000 pounds of spent hydrocracking catalyst would be generated per year. The catalyst in the new Hydrogen Plant would need replacement every one to five years as well. On an annualized basis, 160,000 pounds of spent Hydrogen Plant catalyst would be generated per year. The majority of the spent catalyst would be reclaimed for metals or regenerated at an offsite facility, and thus is not considered a waste. However, the spent catalyst generated in the SCR process would be a hazardous waste and would be disposed of offsite.

Risk of Accidents from Proposed Project Operation The risks to public safety from accidents depends on the processes that are being added or modified as a result of the Proposed Project. The steps to determine the risk include:

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-14 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety

• Define process modifications; • Identify potential hazards; • Select representative accident scenarios; • Conduct an offsite consequence analysis; and • Compare impacts to significance criteria.

The Proposed Project involves a number of modifications to existing Refinery processes, along with the addition of some new processes. Specific process hazards were identified by combining the knowledge of the equipment proposed with an analysis of the potential hazards that could occur with these changed processes. Consequence modeling was then performed for the accident scenarios following US EPA’s RMP Guidance.

The accident scenarios considered in the analysis, and the offsite impacts from changes resulting from the Proposed Project are reported in Table 4.8-3.

Additional accidental release scenarios were considered but were not analyzed further. These scenarios and the reasons for not analyzing them further are identified below:

• Transportation or unloading accident involving an aqueous ammonia truck. Releases of ammonia due to transportation or unloading accidents were previously modeled for the ULSD project (Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 2003). The impact from a release due to a transportation or unloading truck accident would be the same for the Proposed Project as it was for the ULSD project, considered to be Improbable. This result is shown on Table 4.8-2. Therefore, it was not necessary to re-model these scenarios for the Proposed Project, since the prior model results were already available.

• Failure of the aqueous ammonia tank at the Unicracker. Aqueous ammonia is currently used on site. The additional amounts of aqueous ammonia that would be supplied for use in the SCR at the Unicracker Unit would be loaded into the existing ammonia tank and would be at the same concentration as the existing ammonia. Therefore, the total amount of aqueous ammonia on-site at the Unicracker Unit at any given time would not change; only the number and frequency of truck deliveries would increase. Therefore, the on-site hazard associated with aqueous ammonia at the Unicracker Unit due to the Proposed Project would be the same as the existing hazard.

The risk for the Proposed Project would only be due to increase in the number of the individual trucks involved in delivering the aqueous ammonia, so the risk was assessed as being due solely to a truck transportation or unloading accident. That risk due to a transportation or unloading accident was much smaller than that from the catastrophic failure of the aqueous ammonia tank at the Unicracker. The only effect due to the Proposed Projct would be in transport, as described above.

• Transportation accident involving a molten sulfur truck, and subsequent fire generating sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. Although there would be about 9 additional molten sulfur trucks associated with the Proposed Project, the hazard associated with a release of SO2 from a molten sulfur fire resulting from a truck accident and subsequent fire oxidizing sulfur to SO2 would be the same as that evaluated for the ULSD project, which had the same increase, minimal. Therefore, this scenario was not modeled again for the Proposed Project. It should be noted that the molten sulfur would be degassed prior to

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-15 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety

TABLE 4.8-3 CONOCOPHILIPS CFEP ACCIDENT SCENARIOS

Case 1: A catastrophic failure of the existing 42,000-bbl/day gas oil hydrocracker (Case 1a) at the Refinery (baseline) resulting in an explosion with blast wave, a pool fire, or a BLEVE. The catastrophic failure was assumed to be caused by a major external event like an earthquake. The risk posed by 42,000 bbl/day of gas oil in the existing hydrocracker is the baseline against which the modified 65,000-bbl/day gas oil hydrocracker will be compared (Case 1b).

Case 2: A catastrophic failure of the existing 16,087-bbl/day naphtha reformer (Case 2a) at the Refinery (baseline) resulting in an explosion with blast wave, a pool fire, or a BLEVE. The catastrophic failure was assumed to be caused by a major external event like an earthquake. The risk posed by 16,087 bbl/day of naphtha in the existing reformer is the baseline against which the modified 26,000- bbl/day naphtha reformer will be compared (Case 2b).a

Case 3: A catastrophic failure of the existing 8,812- bbl/day jet fuel UNISAR© (Case 3a) at the Refinery (baseline) resulting in an explosion with blast wave, a pool fire, or a BLEVE. The catastrophic failure was assumed to be caused by a major external event like an earthquake. The risk posed by 8,812- bbl/day of jet fuel in the existing UNISAR© is the baseline against which the modified 16,740- bbl/day jet fuel UNISAR© will be compared (Case 3b).

Case 4: A catastrophic failure of the existing 7,600- bbl/day butane deisobutanizer (DIB) (Case 4a) at the Refinery (baseline) resulting in an explosion with blast wave, a pool fire, or a BLEVE. The catastrophic failure was assumed to be caused by a major external event like an earthquake. The risk posed by 7,600- bbl/day of jet fuel in the existing DIB is the baseline against which the modified 10,200- bbl/day butane DIB will be compared (Case 4b).

Case 5: A catastrophic failure of a 300,000-bbl marine vessel containing gasoline, releasing 10% of the vessel capacity onto water and resulting in a pool fire. A marine accident was assumed to be the cause of the catastrophic failure of the vessel. The changes in the import and export of products resulting from the Proposed Project would cause a net annual decrease of marine vessel and tugboat trips. Due to size and combustion properties, an accident involving a gasoline filled marine vessel would represent the worst case scenario of these options.

Case 6: A catastrophic failure of the new steam methane reformer (SMR) at the new Hydrogen Plant, releasing SMR feed and resulting in an explosion and blast wave. The feed rate into this unit is 83,000 pounds per hour. The catastrophic failure was assumed to be caused by a major external event like an earthquake.

Case 7: A catastrophic failure of the new 120 million standard cubic feet per day (scf/day) hydrogen supply piping at the new Hydrogen Plant, releasing hydrogen and resulting in an explosion and blast wave. The catastrophic failure was assumed to be caused by a major external event like an earthquake. The scenario assumed a sudden release of hydrogen at the flow capacity of the piping system for a 15-minute period.

Case 8: A catastrophic failure of the new aqueous ammonia tank at the new Hydrogen Plant resulting in the spilling of the entire contents of the tank (15,000 gallons of 19% aqueous ammonia) into the 45 m2 containment dike surrounding the tank.

Case 9: A process unit accident releasing hydrogen sulfide (H2S) from the new hydrocracker reactor train. This accident scenario assumes a complete break in a recycle gas line containing H2S from the recycle compressor. A one-inch line containing gas with an H2S concentration of 0.65 percent and under a gauge pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch (psig) is assumed to break completely, releasing gas for 10 minutes before shutting down. H2S emissions were computed assuming a horizontal jet from the pipe break under choked flow conditions. Another scenario related to an H2S release would involve the breakage of a tube in the air cooler on the stripper overhead. Although the H2S concentration in this line may be as high as 8.7 percent, the line pressure is only 75 psig, which results in lower emissions than the other accident scenario.

Case 10: An accident releasing acid gas feed at the new Unit 235 Sulfur Reduction Unit (SRU). This accident assumes a break in the Amine Acid Gas (AAG) feed line (Case 10a) or the Sour Water Stripper Acid Gas (SWSAG) feed line (Case 10b) to the new SRU. The acid gas compositions include an H2S concentration of 88.42 percent in the AAG, and H2S and ammonia concentrations of 34.61 percent each in the SWSAG. Each line would be under a pressure of 10 psig, releasing gas for 10 minutes before shutting down. H2S emissions would be worse under Case 10a and ammonia emissions would result under Case 10b. Each case was modeled at a release rate equivalent to a total release of the feed gas to the atmosphere, a catastrophic worst- case scenario.

a After the modeling was complete, ConocoPhillips scaled back the Proposed Project scope from 26,000 to 18,500 bbl/day. Thus, the modeling overstates the effects.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-16 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety

transport, so it would contain less than 10 ppm H2S by weight in sulfur compared to 200- 300 ppm H2S by weight in undegassed sulfur. Therefore, a truck accident releasing molten sulfur would result in minimal H2S emissions. As is the case for the ammonia truck accident, the sulfur truck accident would be considered to be Improbable.

• Failure of a 1,000-bbl butane railcar. There would be approximately three additional butane railcar shipments per day from the Refinery, but no additional trains, just as for the ULSD project. Risk from rail accidents is computed on a per-train basis, not a per railcar basis. Thus, the probability of a rail accident due to butane shipments from the facility would not be increased by the addition of three railcars per day to the train. Since the consequence of a release of butane from a railcar breach would remain unchanged, there would be no added risk from the export of additional butane from the facility. Therefore, this scenario was not analyzed.

• Failure of piping associated with the modified hydrocracker, reformer, UNISAR©, or DIB. The volume of liquids in piping to and from the modified hydrocracker, reformer, UNISAR©, and deisobutanizer would be less than that contained within the associated process units themselves and the fluids involved would be the same as those in the process units. Since a catastrophic failure of the process units was examined, there was no need to assess a smaller nearby release associated with failure of piping associated with the process unit.

Modeling Methods for Accident Scenarios and Sensitive Receptors Offsite consequences were modeled according to the methods described in the Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis (RMP OCA Guidance) (US EPA, 1999). Equations presented in this guidance document for vapor cloud explosions (VCEs), boiling liquid expanding vapor explosions (BLEVEs), and pool fires were used to model the scenarios involving these effects. Blast effects at the receptor location for the scenarios incorporating VCEs were calculated using Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor Cloud Explosions, Flash Fires, and BLEVEs (AIChE, 1994).

Consistent with the RMP OCA Guidance, RMP*Comp was used for aqueous ammonia to calculate the evaporation rate, and SCREEN3, a US EPA screening-level model for neutrally buoyant gases, was used to estimate airborne exposure at the receptor location.

The hydrocracker recycle gas (Case 9) contains about 0.65 percent by volume H2S. Ninety percent of the recycle gas is hydrogen and 9.35 percent is methane. The design basis for the AAG feed gas to the SRU (Case 10a) is 88.42 percent H2S. To simplify the dispersion calculations from a pipe break under pressure, the thermodynamics of a pure H2S gas plume were assumed for these

H2S releases. These releases were then modeled as a horizontal jet release with SLAB, a dense gas dispersion model developed by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. This approach should tend to overstate the ground-level concentrations since SLAB would calculate an initial plume slump for assumed pure H2S releases.

The design basis for the Sour Water Stripper Acid Gas feed gas to the SRU (Case 10b) is

34.61 percent H2S and 34.61 percent ammonia. Case 10a addresses a worse case H2S release for the SRU feed, thus Case 10b was used to characterize an ammonia release. The ammonia release

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-17 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety would be at an elevated temperature (approximately 180oF) and since it would be a lighter-than- air gas, it would have a reduced ground-level impact over a dense or neutrally-buoyant gas. To maintain a conservative assessment, the ammonia release was modeled as an ambient temperature, neutrally buoyant release with the SCREEN3 model to estimate airborne exposure at the receptor location.

Worst-case meteorological conditions of Stability Class F and 1.5 meters per second (m/s) winds based on RMP guidance were used in the modeling. These conditions describe a still, stable atmosphere typical of clear, calm overnight/early morning hours, which tends to produce worst- case dispersion conditions.

There are buffer zones around sources of hazardous substances related to the Proposed Project. The Project area is bounded by undeveloped open space to the east. Northeast of the Refinery are industrial and open spaces, and one small residential area. Immediately south of the active area of the Refinery is a 300- to 600-foot undeveloped area, which is maintained as a buffer area between the Refinery and the Bayo Vista residential area. This residential area is the closest residential area to most of the Proposed Project elements. The closest sensitive receptor (e.g., day care centers, schools) to a Proposed Project element is a daycare center, the Bayo Vista Child Development Center, located approximately one-half mile south of the Unicracker Complex site. The new Hydrogen Plant and the modified Deisobutanizer (Unit 215 DIB) would be located closest to Tormey, the small residential area to the northeast.

Assessment of Consequences The hazard assessment matrix presented in Figure 4.8-2, show the results of the hazards calculations for the 10 release scenarios, classified into the four hazard severity groups according to their corresponding hazard thresholds. For Cases 1b through 4b, the explosion, pool fire, or BLEVE result from blast and thermal hazards with the highest consequence of release is reported in Figure 4.8-2. The 10 release scenarios are also classified into five release probabilities in the matrix in Figure 4.8-2 according to the probabilities of release identified in Table 4.8-1.

All the release scenarios analyzed have a probability of occurrence that is extremely low (less than one release in 100 years, or <1.0x10-2 per year). Two scenarios (Cases 7 and 8) have very low off-site hazard consequences, four scenarios (Cases 4, 6, 9, and 10b) have low off-site hazard consequences, and two scenarios (Cases 2b and 3b) have moderate off-site hazard consequences. These results are primarily due to the large distances to the off-site receptors (650 to 870 m).

(Note that Case 10 was categorized as high consequence overall due to the H2S release described below.) For the hydrocracker H2S release scenario (Case 9), the H2S/ammonia release scenario from the SRU (Case 10), and the blast/thermal scenarios involving the naphtha reformer (Case 2b) and the UNISAR (Case 3b), the off-site receptor used in the model represents the residential area south of the Refinery. For the scenarios involving the Deisobutanizer (Case 4b) and the Hydrogen Plant (Cases 6, 7, and 8), the modeled off-site receptor represents the small residential area northeast of the Refinery.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-18 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety

Consequence

Very Low Low Moderate High

(no injury or (minor injury or (moderate injury (severe injury or damage) damage) or damage) fatality)

Frequent More than once per year (0 to 1 years)

Periodic Once per decade (1 to 10 years)

Occasional During facility lifetime (10 to 100 years)

Improbable (100 to 10,000 years) 7, 8 4, 6, 9 2, 3 1, 5, 10

Likelihood or Frequency of Occurrence Remote Not likely to occur at all

These combinations of severity and likelihood identify situations of major concern that are considered significant.

ConocoPhillips CFEP Project Figure 4.8-2 Scenario Hazard Matrix for the Proposed Project

Three scenarios have a high hazard potential. For Case 5 (marine vessel failure), this is primarily due to an arbitrary off-site receptor located within 100 meters and the large volume of release.

For Case 1b (hydrocracker failure) and Case 10a (H2S release from the SRU), the off-site receptor is the residential area south of the Refinery, which is 650 meters away from each source. The estimated impacts for Case 1b and Case 10a are due to the large release volume and resulting explosion and the high H2S concentration in the release, respectively.

Risk is not defined by the potential magnitude of the hazard consequence alone. Rather, risk is determined by the combination of hazard potential and the probability of occurrence. High impact but low probability releases are not considered significant. Likewise, low impact but high probability releases are not considered significant. Only those releases that have a frequent or periodic occurrence (more frequent than once every 10 years) and have a concurrent moderate or higher impact are considered to be significant. Again, in the case of the examined accident scenarios, all releases, according to available accident statistics, would have an improbable likelihood of occurrence, with calculated probabilities less than once every 100 years.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-19 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety

In summary, the potential releases would not cause an unhealthful offsite impact to occur within the expected 30-year life of the plant. All of the release scenarios fall into that portion of the risk matrix where the impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Terrorism Sabotage is one of the public safety issues that is evaluated for the Refinery. To minimize sabotage or terrorism, various precautionary measures have been adopted. The standard security for the Refinery to minimize these events includes a chain link fence surrounding the entire facility with controlled gate entrances, third party security guards at all entrance locations, roving security guards, identification badges required for entry by all personnel, Refinery personnel authorization prior to visitors entering into the facility, and general awareness training for all employees.

Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, a Facility Security Plan has been developed and adopted for the Rodeo Refinery consistent with the Maritime Security levels established by the U.S. Coast Guard. Dependent upon the current alert level, certain additional security measures are activated. These activities may include stationing additional security guards at critical locations, additional sheriff patrols, restricted parking, restricted access, additional vehicle searches, and other sensitive security measures to protect the facility.

Mitigation: None Required.

4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts Impact 4.8-3: A potential exists that accidents at various industrial facilities could interact with accidents at the Refinery in a way that could create a cumulative hazard to the public or the environment from hazardous materials. The contribution from the Proposed Project would not be cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact of the Proposed Project would be less-than-significant.

Other existing industries and planned industrial projects in the region are located too far away from the Refinery to cause potential cumulative impacts to public safety. In the cases postulated in Impact 4.8-2, above, all of the potentially injurious effects of fires, explosions, or from toxic gas releases from the events at the Refinery would be limited in extent to within the property fence line or near the fence line. Also, the probability of an independent accidental release occurring from another cumulative project at the same time that an accident would occur at this Proposed Project would be extremely low. However, in the event of a release due earthquake- induced simultaneous accidents at industries in Rodeo and throughout the Bay Area, the limited geographic extent of the accident effects from the Proposed Project would make that contribution not cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None Required.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-20 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Safety

References – Public Safety American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE). Process Equipment Reliability Data. Center for Chemical Process Safety. New York 1989.

AIChE. Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor Cloud Explosions, Flash Fries, and BLEVEs. Center for Chemical Process Safety. New York 1994.

AIChE. Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis. Center for Chemical Process Safety. New York: 2000.

American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). Current AIHA ERPGs. http://www.aiha.org/Committees/documents/erpglevels.pdf. Retrieved November 18, 2005.

California Division of Mines and Geology. Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California, Map Sheet 48. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/pga.htm. Retrieved November 18, 2005.

Contra Costa County Community Development Department (CCCCDD). Draft Environmental Impact Report, ConocoPhillips Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel/Strategic Modernization Project (State Clearing House Number 2002122017), May 2003.

Harwood, D.W. and E.R. Russell. Present Practices of Highway Transportation and Materials. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-RD-89-013. 1989.

Kletz, T. An Engineer’s View of Human Error. The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Rugby, England, 1985.

Lees, F. Loss Prevention in Process Industries, Vol 1. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1992.

United States Department of Transportation (US DOT). National Transportation Statistics, 2000.

US DOT. Hazardous Materials Safety, Hazardous Materials Information System, 2002.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA),. Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA-550-B- 99-009. April 1999.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.8-21 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

The hydrology and water quality effects related to the implementation of the Proposed Project would be less-than-significant impacts and would require no mitigation. • Solids and pollutants could increase in wastewater effluent discharges to the waters of the Bay due to construction activities. Discharges would be required to meet discharge requirements and control measures established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, so construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would not adversely affect surface water quality; • Pollutants, including toxic metal and chemicals, could increase in wastewater effluent discharges to San Pablo Bay due to changes in Refinery process activities. Discharges would be required to meet discharge requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Although there are uncertainties in the amounts of any potential increases, if any, in toxic metal and chemical loadings, the total increased flow of wastewater attributed to the Proposed Project would only be approximately 3 percent of existing discharge amounts. Therefore, the potential impact would be less-than-significant. • The Proposed Project’s direct, and contribution to, cumulative impacts from any potential increases in metal and chemical loading in effluent discharges to receiving waters are less-than-significant due to discharge requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board which are established to protect the entire San Pablo Bay Watershed.

4.9.1 Introduction This section addresses changes in surface water, wastewater management, and groundwater conditions that would result from construction and operation of the Proposed Project at the San Francisco Refinery in Rodeo, California. This section describes the existing hydrologic setting, the framework that regulates surface water, flooding and water quality, presents potential project impacts and when necessary, provides appropriate mitigation. This section primarily focuses on surface water drainage, storm water management, discharge water quality, and the existing wastewater treatment system at the Refinery.

4.9.2 Setting 4.9.2.1 Regional Setting The ConocoPhillips Refinery (Refinery) is located in the low rolling hills along the eastern shores of the San Pablo Bay near the mouths of the Mare Island Strait and Carquinez Strait in Contra Costa County. Interstate80 separates the main Proposed Project facilities from the eastern portion of the site, which is primarily undeveloped. The Refinery is bounded to the north by the Valero Terminal, to the south by residential development, to the west by San Pablo Bay and to the east by undeveloped property.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality

Precipitation The climate of the San Francisco Bay Area is characterized as Mediterranean with cool wet winters and relatively warm, dry summers. The mean annual rainfall in the Proposed Project site and its vicinity for the period between 1950 and 2005 is approximately 23 inches (Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2006). Analysis of long-term precipitation records indicates that wetter and drier cycles, lasting several years each, are common in the region.

Floods in the San Francisco Bay Area generally result from intense rainstorms following prolonged rainfall that has saturated the ground. Peak flows are usually of short duration. Historically, major flood problems have occurred in urban areas located in the relatively flat, wide valleys near the mouths of rivers.

Hydrology The Refinery lies within the San Francisco Bay Area Hydrologic Basin. The San Francisco Bay functions as the only drainage outlet for waters of the Central Valley. It also marks a natural topographic separation between the northern and southern coastal mountain ranges. This includes the main Bay segments and the areas that drain to them. It also includes the coastal watersheds in the San Francisco Bay Region that drain to the Pacific Ocean. The region’s waterways, wetlands, and bays form the centerpiece of the United States’ fourth largest metropolitan region. Because of its highly dynamic and complex environmental conditions, the basin supports an extraordinarily diverse and productive ecosystem. The basin’s deepwater channels, tidelands, and marshlands provide a wide variety of habitats that have become increasingly vital to the survival of several plant and animal species. The basin sustains rich communities of crabs, clams, fish, birds, and other aquatic life and serves as important wintering sites for migrating waterfowl.

Groundwater Basins The site is underlain by portions of two groundwater basins. The Tormey Groundwater Basin comprises the area to the northeast of the groundwater divide that occurs on Tormey Hill, which is to the north of the Proposed Project area. Flows from this basin are in a northeasterly direction towards the San Pablo Bay. The Refinery Groundwater Basin is comprised of the area southwest of the Tormey Hill groundwater divide (ENSR, 2002). Groundwater flows downgradient towards the axis of the valley within which the facility is located, and then along the valley to San Pablo Bay. The basins are defined by the contact between unconsolidated materials and bedrock, which varies across the Refinery area. Specific information regarding the depth of unconsolidated materials and bedrock beneath the Proposed Project area is addressed in Section 4.06 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity of this EIR.

Water Quality The San Francisco Bay is an estuary with complex hydrodynamics that result in intricate sediment and chemical fate transport processes. The water quality in the Bay is influenced by a variety of factors including a mix of point and nonpoint source discharges, ground and surface water interactions, and water quality/water quantity relationships. A number of water bodies in the Bay are impaired due to excessive siltation, but it is very difficult to distinguish between excessive siltation and impairment due to flow alterations. The State and Regional Boards have

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality implemented the Water Management Initiative as the model for which water resources are to be protected. The RWQCB is now structured to promote a watershed-based approach towards implementation of programs, with particular emphasis on integration of programs within county watershed management areas. RWQCB staff working in the San Francisco Watershed Management Area has identified issues based on consideration of a combination of water quality, customer service, and program requirements.

San Francisco Bay Estuary The San Francisco Bay Estuary is the largest estuary on the Pacific Coast of the United States. The estuary has two basic elements: San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, a 2,800 square-kilometer wetland formed at the confluence of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers. San Francisco Bay can be divided into distinct water bodies that have different physical and chemical properties. The northern reach includes three major embayments: Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, and Central Bay. The northern reach conveys outflow from the Delta at its head and thus can be considered to be a typical estuary. Central Bay is deeper and more oceanic in character than the northern and southern reaches because of its proximity to ocean inflow through the Golden Gate, a deep narrow channel through the coastal range. The southern reach is separated from the northern reach by the Central Bay and extends from the San Francisco- Oakland Bay Bridge to San Jose.

Freshwater strongly influences environmental conditions in the San Francisco Bay Estuary. Over 90% of the estuary’s fresh water originates from the Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage basin and enters the northern reach. The Sacramento River provides about 80% of this flow, and the San Joaquin River and other streams contribute the remainder. The remaining 10% of freshwater comes from the San Francisco Bay watershed and flows into the southern reach (RWQCB, 2004). The southern reach, like the northern reach, has the physiographic characteristics of an estuary but lacks the fresh water inflow to drive a strong estuarine circulation. As a result, circulation in the southern reach is influenced predominantly by tides, evaporation, and wastewater discharges and thus functions much like a tidally oscillating lagoon for most of the year.

San Pablo Bay As noted previously, the San Pablo Bay is part of the San Francisco Bay Estuary. In the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan, the RWQCB identifies a number of beneficial uses of San Pablo Bay that must be protected. The beneficial uses include industrial service supply, water contact recreation, non-contact water recreation, navigation, ocean commercial and sport fishing, wildlife habitat, estuarine habitat, preservation of rare and endangered species, and fish spawning and migration (RWQCB, 2004).

The physical characteristics (i.e. salinity, temperature, and suspended solids) of the San Pablo Bay waters vary greatly on a given day due to its location near the mouth of the Sacramento River. In addition, San Pablo Bay lies between the less salty Suisun Bay and the saltier San Francisco Bay. The interaction between the fresh and saline water has a major influence on the circulation of water in the San Pablo Bay itself. When freshwater and saltwater meet, the denser saltwater tends to flow under the freshwater until the waters are mixed by stronger tidal currents and winds.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality

While the major source of freshwater to San Pablo Bay is inflow from the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta (over 90% on an annual basis), surface water flow, surface storm water runoff, and groundwater all are important sources of fresh water. The San Pablo Bay watershed has numerous rivers, creeks, and small streams that all flow toward it. Surface runoff creates the majority of freshwater flows within the rivers and streams. Consequently, stream flow in all the creeks and rivers varies from season to season depending on precipitation. Most of water flow during a given year occurs during the rainy season, from November to April. Flows in smaller streams located in the upper reaches of the watershed are intermittent and start to run dry after the end of the rainy season. Major streams intercept some groundwater in their lower reaches, which allows them to flow all year.

4.9.2.2 Project Setting The principal activity at the Refinery is the manufacture of fuels. The Refinery processes several different types of crude oil and other raw materials. The crudes are delivered to the Refinery by pipeline and tanker. The Refinery produces a variety of petroleum products, including butane, various grades of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, fuel oils, sulfur, and petroleum coke. The fuels produced are used for numerous transportation applications, including automobiles, heavy trucks, ships, and aircraft. The petroleum coke is sent offsite either as fuel or for further processing.

Process water discharge pipes originate in four geographic areas that flow through separate trunk lines to their final destination, the Wastewater Treatment Plant. These areas are referred to as “West Refinery” “East Refinery/Tormey Hill,” “Sulfur/MP-30/Seasonal Storage” and “Lower Tank Farm.”

West Refinery The West Refinery is located west of San Pablo Avenue. The area includes the Marine Terminal, butane storage, railcar loading, crude oil and product storage, hydrogen plant (Unit 110), a cogeneration steam/power plant, shop areas, warehouse, laboratory, and administration buildings. The primary sources of wastewater from the West Refinery include:

• Storm water runoff, • Rainwater drained from tank blocks, • Flow from decommissioned Unit 210 in the East Refinery/Tormey Hill area that runs under San Pablo Avenue to the West Refinery area, • A cogeneration steam/power plant, • Groundwater remediation water, and • Sewer discharge from buildings, e.g. lab, administration, warehouse, and shop.

Combined wastewater (e.g. storm water runoff, process water, sanitary sewage, and groundwater remediation) is conveyed from the West Refinery area via a 48-inch underground pipe. This drainage pipe would connect to the main Proposed Project wastewater collection and storage system. All Proposed Project wastewater would be collected and pumped to equalization tanks 130, 104, and 105 prior to treatment.

Also, located in the West Refinery area is the inlet for a 29.4 million gallon per day (MGD) saltwater single pass cooling system that is regulated by a National Pollution Discharge

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-4 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality

Elimination Permit (NPDES) permit CA0005053 , issued by the RWQCB. Discharge of the non- contact, once through, saline cooling water and some demineralization wastewater occurs in one outfall location, E-001. In the southern part of the West Refinery is a saltwater "safety basin" and the associated "safety basin" bypass channel, which serve as holding structure and conveyance for the single pass saltwater discharge.

East Refinery / Tormey Hill East Refinery / Tormey Hill is located east of San Pablo Avenue. This area generates process wastewaters from product storage, product shipping, delayed coking, crude distillation, desalting, gas fractionation, catalytic reforming, prefractionation, hydrogen production, hydrotreating, fractionation and utility operations. Sources of wastewater in this area include storm water runoff, sanitary sewage, and drainage from tank blocks.

Product storage is located on the northeastern boundary of the East Refinery / Tormey Hill area and also located east of Highway 80. Wastewater and storm water drains in these areas are open and connected to sumps or manholes. These sumps or manholes are in or adjacent to the perimeter impoundment structures surrounding the product storage tanks. Manually operated valves regulate discharges from large tank impoundment areas. Water draws and tank cleanout from product tanks discharge into open sumps immediately adjacent to tanks.

The coking/crude unit (Unit 200), crude unit (Unit 267), fuel gas recovery (Unit 233), and butane fractionator (Unit 215) are located in the lower center portion of the East Refinery / Tormey Hill area. Drains in these units are open and connected to below grade sumps. The coking unit is the primary destination for oily sludge from the API separator and residual oils left from refining crude petroleum byproduct materials. These materials are converted to petroleum coke. The coke is removed from the drum with hydraulic cutting tools that use oily water routed from the de- coking process. The oily cutting water is discharged and recycled to a storage tank adjacent to the coke unit.

The prefractionation, hydrotreating, fractionation and hydrogen production unit (Unit 240), catalytic reformer (Unit 244) and aromatic saturation (Unit248) are located in the southern portion of the East Refinery / Tormey Hill area. Drains in these units are open and connected to below-grade sumps.

Sulfur/MP-30/Seasonal Storage The Sulfur/MP-30/Seasonal Storage area is divided by Interstate 80, but connected by pipeline. West of I-80, the Sulfur/MP-30 Complex is adjacent to the East Refinery/Tormey Hill. This area includes sulfur recovery (Units 234, 236 and 238 ) and the MP-30 Complex consisting of isomerization (Unit 228), catalytic hydrotreating (Unit 229), distillation and olefin saturation (Unit 230), catalytic reforming (Unit 231).

The Seasonal Storage is located east of Interstate 80, but connects to the Sulfur/MP-30 area wastewater system via an underground pipe below the roadway.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-5 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality

The primary sources of wastewater in the Sulfur/MP-30/Seasonal Storage area are:

• Storm water runoff, • Collection from Product storage areas, • Collection from Seasonal Storage, • Discharge from the sulfur removal process, • Drainage from incoming pipeline operations, • Drains in the sulfur Units 228, 229, 230 and 231.

Wastewater and storm water drains in the product storage areas are typically connected to sumps or manholes. These sumps and manholes are in or adjacent to the perimeter impoundment structures surrounding the product storage tanks. Drains in the sulfur units (Units 234, 238, 236) are typically connected to open sumps. Drainage from incoming pipeline operations and MP-30 units (Units 228, 229, 230, 231), are typically connected to open sumps.

Lower Tank Farm Interstate Highway 80 runs parallel to the eastern boundary of the Lower Tank Farm. Sulfur/ MP-30/Seasonal Storage forms the northern boundary and the Refinery wastewater treatment system is located to the southwest. Current operations in this area include product storage, tank water draws, tank cleanout, and wastewater storage (Units 130, 104, and 105). The primary sources of wastewater from the Lower Tank Farm are from:

• Storm water runoff, • Drainage from product storage areas, • Drainage from Gasoline blending operations (Unit 76), • Drainage from Raw materials receiving (Unit 40), and • Drainage from the Fire Training area Product storage is located throughout the Lower Tank Farm area. Wastewater and storm water drains in these areas are typically connected to sumps or manholes. These sumps and manholes are in or adjacent to the perimeter impoundment structures surrounding the product storage tanks. The sumps are connected to the east main trunk line which lies along the western boundary of the Lower Tank Farm area. Wastewater from the blending operations, the raw materials receiving unit and the Fire Training area is also collected and routed into the east main trunk line.

Land Treatment Area The 6.4-acre Land Treatment Area is located east of Interstate Highway 80. It was constructed in 1975 and 1976 for the purpose of biotreatment of oily sludge generated from various Refinery processes. In 1988, use of the Land Treatment Area was discontinued and it was subsequently closed. Closure activities were conducted under the directives of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) during a period from April 1988 to October 1989. Upon closure, the Land Treatment Area was left with a one-foot clean clay cap with vegetative cover on top of “biodegraded” wastes.

In the 30-year post closure period that began in 1991, the DTSC has required the vegetative cover, berms, run-on ditches, warning signs and fences around the Land Treatment Area to be

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-6 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality maintained, and the storm water that accumulates in the bermed area of the Land Treatment Area to be removed. That collected storm water is processed in the wastewater treatment plant.

Water Supply The Refinery receives its freshwater supply, 4.32 million gallons per day (MGD), from the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). Additional cooling water (saltwater) is obtained from San Pablo Bay, with an average of 31 million gallons withdrawn and returned to the Bay daily. The Refinery’s main use of water is to supply refining processes with steam and cooling water. The water supply can also be used as a back-up source of water for emergency fire suppression, if necessary.

Wastewater Treatment Plant The Refinery wastewater and most of the storm water runoff is collected and managed in the existing wastewater treatment system that is regulated by the RWQCB under an NPDES discharge permit. The Refinery treats and discharges process wastewater including water from cooling towers and boiler blowdown, cargo hold wash water, sanitary waste, offsite wastewater, recovered groundwater from onsite remediation, and process area storm water runoff (Environmental Resources Management (ERM), 2005). In 2005, the average annual discharge reported to the RWQCB was 3.3 MGD.

Selenium treatment occurs on the western boundary of the Lower Tank Farm area. The Refinery segregates sour water from process units, strips out hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, and hard pipes the stripped sour water that is not recycled back to the process units of the Selenium Removal Plant (SRP). This treatment unit uses primary copper and secondary ferrous precipitation to remove selenium and excess copper from stripped sour water. Precipitated selenium and copper containing solids are thickened, and then dewatered in a filter press for disposal as hazardous waste. Treated effluent from the Selenium Removal Plant is routed to the main Refinery wastewater storage and treated through the wastewater system.

The wastewater collection system (Unit 100) flows by gravity to dry and wet weather sumps, from which wastewater is pumped to the three-tank wastewater storage system, equalization tanks 130, 104, and 105. Total volume of tank storage is approximately 19.8 million gallons (ERM, 2005). During periods of extreme rainfall, if the equalization tanks are full, wastewater is diverted to a surface impoundment, the “Primary Basin” (2.3 million gallons capacity). The Primary Basin is permitted as a secondary containment structure under the Resource and Conservation Recovery Act1 (RCRA) since it may contain hazardous petroleum constituents. If the Primary Basin reaches capacity it will overflow into a second surface impoundment, the “Main Basin” (7.9 million gallons capacity).

All onsite wastewaters (process, storm water runoff and sanitary waste) are combined for treatment at Unit 100. Wastewater from the equalization tanks is gravity fed to a four-cell oil/water separator. The separator does not use screens to remove gross debris from the effluent stream since trash is removed at the inlets to the dry and wet weather sumps. These cells allow

1 See discussion of RCRA in 4.9.2.3 Regulatory Setting.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-7 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality product from process waters to settle out via gravity. Oily surface waters and oily solids are removed from the cells by top and bottom chain-driven skimmers for oil recovery or conversion to petroleum coke. From the separator cells, water flows under gravity into a four-cell Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) unit to remove additional oil and suspended solids. Here an air stripper is used to remove any suspended product from the effluent prior to Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment (PACT).

Biological treatment occurs in the PACT unit followed by clarification and sand filtration. The PACT treatment unit biologically oxidizes organic materials with aggressive aeration and adsorbs toxics using powdered activated carbon. Carbon is recycled from the PACT unit and is regenerated using a Wet Air Regeneration (WAR) unit. The WAR unit reactivates the carbon and oxidizes biological growth. Makeup carbon is supplied from tanks immediately adjacent to the PACT system. Biosolids generated in the PACT unit are settled out in the clarifiers. Discharge from the clarifiers is filtered through sand media, disinfected with chlorine, dechlorinated with sodium bisulfite, and discharged to San Pablo Bay through a 6,000-foot, 18-inch diameter outfall pipe referred to as outfall E-002. The outfall terminates with a multi-port diffuser that provides a minimum dilution rate of 10:1.

Storm Water and Wastewater Discharges As well as treating process wastewater, storm water runoff from process and industrial areas is routed through the wastewater treatment plant prior to being discharged to San Pablo Bay through outfall E-002. Storm water from the Marine Terminal and causeway are discharged through outfall E-004 under the NPDES permit. Storm water runoff from these areas is estimated at 0.006 MGD. Outfall E-003 is used for storm water runoff from unimproved, non-process areas of the Refinery, and residential areas of Rodeo. This runoff is not treated by the wastewater treatment plant but combined with the non-contact salt cooling water. The existing Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) establishes a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of the Refinery’s control measures and the overall storm water quality.

Treated wastewater and process area storm water is discharged into San Pablo Bay through outfall E-002 via the 6,000-foot, 18-inch pipe, which provides chlorination contact time of approximately 45 minutes at a normal flow rate of approximately 1,500 GPM.

The Primary and Main Storm Basins are used solely for emergency storage of process wastewater and storm water. The emergency conditions are usually related to large storm events. When the storage tanks are at capacity the wet weather and dry weather sumps will fill and gravity drain to the Primary Storm Basin. When the Primary Storm Basin is at capacity the water will drain via a weir arrangement into the Main Storm Basin. If the Main Storm Basin were to be filled to capacity, there is a weir arrangement to drain the water into the channel for the E-003 outfall. The Primary Storm Basin has a retention capacity of 2.3 million gallons and the Main Storm Basin has a retention capacity of 7.9 million gallons (ERM, 2005).

The Refinery is regulated by the RWQCB for effluent discharges from its wastewater treatment plant and discharges of all storm water associated with industrial activity from the Refinery to San Pablo Bay (waters of the United States). The current discharge limitations for untreated storm

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-8 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality water, process cooling water and the wastewater treatment plant effluent are outlined in the RWQCB NPDES Order No. R2-2005-0030 that became effective September 1, 2005 following the installation of the Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel project.2 Its purpose is to describe storm water and effluent discharges generated from the Refinery and, based on the discharge types and concentrations, provides effluent and receiving water limitations and special discharge provisions in accordance with the Clean Water Act.3 The RWQCB NPDES Order, by describing the effluent discharge to receiving surface water and providing discharge limitations and provisions, represents a current and comprehensive assessment of the Refinery’s discharge to receiving waters.

Storm water runoff for the Proposed Project component areas would be conveyed and treated at the wastewater treatment plant. During construction, storm water runoff would be controlled by required erosion control measures set forth by the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.

Receiving Waters The Refinery discharges into San Pablo Bay of the San Francisco Estuary system. San Pablo Bay is the first water body that receives flows from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the Petaluma, Sonoma, and Napa Rivers. The drainage areas that contribute flows to the rivers comprise about 37 percent of the land area of the state. Much of the land area is primarily devoted to agricultural and forestry land uses, with some major urban centers that contribute discharges into the rivers. Pollutants produced by these land uses reach the San Francisco Bay through discharge from wastewater treatment plants, storm water runoff, agricultural drain water, disposal of dredged material, as well as acid mine drainage from abandoned mines.

The receiving waters for the Refinery discharge, which include the San Pablo Bay, are tidally influenced water bodies with significant fresh water inflows during the wet weather season that allow frequent flushing and dilution. Based on Regional Monitoring Program data, San Pablo Bay meets the definition of “marine” under the definitions included in the California Toxics Rule (CTR) and the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (RWQCB, 2000). Marine waters have different water quality criteria than fresh waters

NPDES Discharge Limitations Discharges from the Refinery are currently governed by Waste Discharge Requirements specified in the RWQCB NPDES Order and regulated by the San Francisco RWQCB. This RWQCB NPDES Order addresses the discharge of process wastewater from the wastewater treatment plant, once-through non-contact saltwater, and storm water discharges. Routine water quality monitoring is conducted on outflows from three outfalls (E-002, E-003, and E-004) into San Pablo Bay.

2 A copy of the RWQCB NPDES Order for the NPDES discharge permit can be found on the RWQCB’s website at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/order_nosb2005.htm. 3 In addition to the RWQCB NPDES Order, the RWQCB concurrently prepares Fact Sheet that describes the factual, legal and methodological basis for the RWQCB NPDES Order and provides supporting documentation to explain the rationale and assumptions used in deriving the limits.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-9 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality

Effluent limitations are derived from marine criteria and have been included in the RWQCB NPDES Order for the Refinery. The State Board’s Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (State Implementation Policy, or SIP) allows background ambient monitoring data to be determined on a discharge-by- discharge or water body-by-water-body basis. The RWQCB has chosen to use a water body-by- water-body basis because this methodology is more appropriate given the uncertainties inherent in accurately characterizing ambient background in the complex San Francisco Bay system. Compared to other stations in the Regional Monitoring Program, the monitoring stations at Yerba Buena Island and Richardson Bay fit the guidance in the SIP for ambient background data. The RWQCB believes that data from these stations are representative of water that will mix with the discharge from each of the permitted outfalls.

The discharge limitations for effluent mass loading, which is the total effluent discharge of each pollutant included in Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, and for concentration limits in the RWQCB NPDES Order, are summarized in Table 4.9-1 for outfall E-002 (ERM, 2005). Interim effluent limitations were derived for those constituents where the RWQCB has not established Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)4. Specifically, the RWQCB NPDES Order has established interim mass limits for selenium, and mercury, as well as interim concentration limits for all 303(d)-listed pollutants with reasonable potential to cause or contribute to exceedance of water quality standards. Where current, industry-accepted laboratory test methods cannot achieve the lower laboratory detection limits recommended by the RWQCB for constituents such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlordane, dichloro-diphenyl- trichloroethane (DDT) dieldrin, dioxins, and furans, interim mass limits are not required because meaningful performance-based limits cannot be calculated for those pollutants with non- detectable concentrations. However, the Refinery, through participation in the Regional Monitoring Program (RMP), is required to research alternative analytical procedures that result in lower detection limits.

Toxicity bioassays are required for outfall E-002 discharges. These bioassays consist of placing rainbow trout in undiluted treatment plant effluent and evaluating their survival over a 96-hour period. The permit limitation on the toxicity tests requires a survival rate of not less than 70 percent. In addition, discharge from E-002 is subject to the following receiving water limitations:

• No floating, suspended, or deposited macroscopic particulate matter or foam; • No bottom deposits or aquatic growth; • No alteration of turbidity or apparent color beyond present natural background levels; • No visible, floating, suspended, or deposited oil or other products of petroleum origin; and • No toxic or other deleterious substances to be present in concentrations or quantities which will cause deleterious effects on aquatic biota, wildlife, or waterfowl, or which render any of these unfit for human consumption either at levels created in the receiving waters or as a result of biological concentrations.

4 The federal Clean Water Act, described in 4.9.2.3 Regulatory Setting, requires that States establish priority rankings for waterways and develop action plans to improve water quality. This process includes development of TMDLs that set total waste load limits as opposed to concentration based limits for point source and non-point source pollutants.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-10 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality

TABLE 4.9-1 WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT DISCHARGE CONOCOPHILLIPS SAN FRANCISCO AREA REFINERY, RODEO, CALIFORNIA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 2003 THROUGH AUGUST 2005

NPDES Monthly NPDES Daily Monthly Daily Average Maximum Constituent Units Average Maximum Limitation Limitation

Effluent Outfall 002 (E-002) Flow MGD 2.8 7.8 – – BOD kg/day <52 154 377 679 COD kg/day <368 1438 2634 5075 Oil & Grease kg/day <35 124 109 206 TSS kg/day 97 5557 302 473 Ammonia as N kg/day <14 161 206 453 Total Hexavalent Chromium kg/day <0.02 0.11 0.18 0.41 Total Sulfides kg/day <0.6 1.2 2.0 4.5 Settleable Matter ml/1/hr <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2 Ph S.U. 6.9 8.7 – 9.0 Temperature F 81 97 110 Arsenic µg/l <4.3 11 – – Cadmium µg/l <0.1 0.3 – – Copper µg/l 13.4 69.5 – 37 Lead µg/l <0.41 1.5 -- 53 Mercury µg/l 0.011 0.067 0.21 1 Nickel µg/l 2.6 4.3 – 53 Selenium µg/l 15.5 38.7 – 50 Silver µg/l <0.06 0.44 – 23 Zinc µg/l 8.5 21 – – Cyanide µg/l <4.8 <5.0 – 25 Residual Chlorine mg/l ND 1.6 – 0 Benzene µg/l ND ND 0.71 – Chlordane ng/l ND ND 0.81 40 DDT ng/l ND ND 6 10 Dieldrin ng/l ND ND 1.4 19 Endosulfan ng/l ND ND – 0.087 Endrin ng/l ND ND – 0.023 Heptachlor ng/l ND ND 2.1 36 Heptachlor Epoxide ng/l ND ND 1.1 36 Hexachlorobenzene ng/l ND ND 7.7 – Toxaphene ng/l ND ND – 2 Tributylin ng/l ND ND 50 – MTBE mg/l 0.007 0.051 Total PCBs µg/l ND ND 0.0007 0.3

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-11 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality

TABLE 4.9-1 (continued) WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT DISCHARGE CONOCOPHILLIPS SAN FRANCISCO AREA REFINERY, RODEO, CALIFORNIA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 2003 THROUGH AUGUST 2005

Effluent Outfall 003 (E-003) Flow MGD 31.9 54.0 – – Temperature F 86 106.6 – 110 TOC (net) mg/l 0.1 2.2 – 5.0(net) Residual Chlorine mg/l NS NS NA NA pH S.U. 7.9 8.4 NA 8.5 Effluent Outfall 004 (E-004) Flow MGD NM NM – – TPH (gasoline) mg/l <50 <50 – – TPH (diesel) mg/l <140 740 – – Oil & Grease mg/l <4.0 10.2 – 15 Ph S.U. 7.4 8.2 – 8.5

BOD = Biological Oxygen Demand COD = Chemical Oxygen Demand TOC = Total Organic Carbon TSS = Total Suspended Solids N = Nitrogen MGD = Million Gallons per Day mg/l = milligrams per liter or parts per million (ppm) µg/l = micrograms per liter or parts per billion (ppb) ng/l = nanograms per liter <1 = below detection limit NA = not analyzed ND = not detected above laboratory reporting limit – = no daily/monthly average limitation value applied.

Monitoring of the discharge from the treatment plant to the Bay is required under the self- monitoring program to confirm compliance with the RWQCB NPDES Order, and is reported monthly to the RWQCB.

Tsunamis Tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are long period waves that are typically caused by underwater disturbances (landslides), volcanic eruptions, or seismic events. Areas that are highly susceptible to tsunami inundation tend to be located in low-lying coastal areas such as tidal flats, marshlands, and former bay margins that have been artificially filled but are still at or near sea level.

Since 1868, approximately 19 tsunamis have been recorded for the San Francisco Bay. Of these, the maximum wave height measured at the Golden Gate Tide Gauge was 7.4 feet, which is considered to be a reasonable maximum for the future (Contra Costa County, 2005). Due to attenuation within the bay, a tsunami wave at the Golden Gate would diminish to a height of approximately half that in Richmond and nearly disappear by the time it reached to the head of the Carquinez Strait. All components of the Proposed Project are located at topographic elevations above the predicted high tide tsunami wave height.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-12 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality

Seiche A seiche is a free or standing wave oscillation(s) of the surface of water in an enclosed or semi- enclosed basin, such as San Pablo Bay, that may be initiated by an earthquake. Due to the relatively large size of San Pablo Bay, with an inlet to the east and an outlet to the south, the hazard of seiche waves is interpreted to be low. In addition, there is no historic record of such waves occurring in San Pablo Bay during strong earthquakes.

4.9.2.3 Regulatory Setting The regulatory requirements for the Proposed Project include:

• The federal floodplain management requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); • The Federal Clean Water Act, as enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA); • The California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and related California Administrative Code sections administered by the California State Water Resources Control Board and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board; and, • Permitting requirements, which must be fulfilled prior to development, and are enforced by Contra Costa County. The applicable plans, policies, and regulations are discussed below.

Flood Control Regulations Under Executive Order 11988, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for management of floodplain areas defined as the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year (also termed the 100-year floodplain). FEMA requires that local governments covered by federal flood insurance pass and enforce a floodplain management ordinance that specifies minimum requirements for any construction within the 100-year floodplain. In Contra Costa County, construction requirements are contained in the Floodplain Management Ordinance, which was adopted in 1987 and has been amended several times. Along with construction standards, the ordinance also specifies that a Floodplain Permit must be obtained prior to any grading within the 100-year floodplain. The vast majority of ConocoPhillips San Francisco Refinery at Rodeo, including the entire area where the Proposed Project facilities would be developed, is outside the 100-year floodplain. The only part of the active area of the Refinery property that lies within the 100-year floodplain is the marine terminal.

Federal Surface Water Quality Requirements Federal Clean Water Act The purpose of the Clean Water Act is to protect and maintain the quality and integrity of the nation’s waters by requiring states to develop and implement state water plans and policies. Section 303 of the Clean Water Act requires states to establish water quality standards for all waters of the United States that are based on protecting designated beneficial uses of those water bodies. Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states, territories and authorized tribes are

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-13 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality required to develop lists of impaired waters. Impaired waters are those that do not meet water quality standards, even after point sources of pollution have installed the required levels of pollution control technology. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waterways on the lists and develop action plans to improve water quality. This process includes development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) that set waste load5 allocations for point source and non-point source pollutants. The Ducheny Bill (AB 1740) requires the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards to post this list and to provide an estimated completion date for establishing each TMDL.

San Pablo Bay is included on the 2002 California 303(d) list as an impaired water body resulting from the presence of chlordane, DDT, diazinon, dieldrin, dioxin compounds, exotic species, furan compounds, mercury, PCBs (non dioxin-like and dioxin-like), and selenium. The 303(d) list identifies the sources of each pollutant, ranging from unknown nonpoint sources (for PCBs), to municipal point sources, resource extraction sources, atmospheric deposition sources, natural sources and nonpoint sources (for mercury); and industrial point sources, agricultural sources, natural sources and exotic species sources (for selenium).

United States Environmental Protection Agency The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is responsible for implementing federal laws designed to protect air, water, and land. While numerous federal environmental laws guide US EPA’s activities, its primary mandate with respect to water quality is the Clean Water Act. US EPA has developed national technology-based water quality standards and states have developed water quality standards in accordance with the Clean Water Act. US EPA also has authority to establish water quality standards if a state fails to do so. In the National Toxics Rule (NTR) and California Toxics Rule (CTR), US EPA has established such standards for certain toxic pollutants applicable to California waters. These standards are used to determine the amount and the conditions under which pollutants can be discharged.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Part of the Clean Water Act provides for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), in which discharges into navigable waters are prohibited except in compliance with specified requirements and authorizations. Under this system, municipal and industrial facilities are required to obtain a NPDES permit that specifies allowable limits, based on available wastewater treatment technologies, for pollutant levels in their effluent. In California, US EPA has delegated the implementation of this program to the State Board and to the Regional Boards.

Storm water discharges are regulated somewhat differently than pollutant discharges. Discharge of storm water runoff from construction areas of one acre or more requires either an individual permit issued by the Regional Board or coverage under the statewide General Construction Storm Water Permit for storm water discharges. Specific industries and public facilities, including wastewater treatment plants that have direct storm water discharges to navigable waters, are also

5 The load represents the total amount of a pollutant that can be discharged over a given time period. This differs from the discharge limits that usually focus on the concentration of a pollutant in the wastewater discharged into the receiving water.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-14 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality required to obtain either an individual permit or obtain coverage under the statewide General Industrial Storm Water Permit.

Oil Pollution Act Enacted in 1990, this Act (Public Law No. 101-380) amends the Clean Water Act to create a comprehensive oil spill and prevention response scheme. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans must be prepared by owners or operators of facilities that have or could reasonably be expected to discharge a certain amount of oil. These plans should contain preventative (failsafe) and contingency (cleanup) plans for controlling accidental discharges, and for minimizing the effect of such events.

State, Regional and Local Water Quality Regulations and Agencies Porter-Cologne Act The State Board and the Regional Boards share the responsibility under the Porter-Cologne Act to formulate and adopt water policies and plans, and to adopt and implement measures to fulfill Clean Water Act requirements. In order to meet this requirement for the San Francisco Bay area, the Regional Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan) was prepared by the RWQCB to protect the water quality of the State according to the beneficial uses identified for each water body.

Prior to authorizations of waste discharge by the Regional Board, the Porter-Cologne Act requires reports of waste discharges to be filed. The Regional Board then prescribes Waste Discharge Requirements, which serve as NPDES permits under a provision of the Porter-Cologne Act. The Basin Plan, the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan, and the NPDES permit regulate discharges from the Refinery wastewater treatment plant into San Pablo Bay.

Bay Conservation and Development Commission The 27-member San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) was created by the California Legislature in 1965 in response to broad public concern over the future of San Francisco Bay. The Commission is made up of appointees from local governments and state/federal agencies. The Commission is charged with:

• Regulating all filling and dredging in San Francisco Bay (which includes San Pablo and Suisun Bays, sloughs and certain creeks and tributaries that are part of the Bay system, salt ponds and certain other areas that have been diked-off from the Bay).

• Protecting the Suisun Marsh, the largest remaining wetland in California, by administering the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act in cooperation with local governments.

• Regulating new development within the first 100 feet inland from the Bay to ensure that maximum feasible public access to the Bay is provided.

• Minimizing pressures to fill the Bay by ensuring that the limited amount of shoreline area suitable for high priority water-oriented uses is reserved for ports, water-related industries, water-oriented recreation, airports and wildlife areas.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-15 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality

• Pursuing an active planning program to study Bay issues so that Commission plans and policies are based upon the best available current information.

• Administering the federal Coastal Zone Management Act within the San Francisco Bay segment of the California coastal zone to ensure that federal activities reflect Commission policies.

• Participating in the region wide State and federal program to prepare a Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for dredging and dredge material disposal in San Francisco Bay.

• Participating in California's oil spill prevention and response planning program.

State Water Resources Control Board The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board or SWRCB) administers water rights, water pollution control, and water quality functions statewide. The State Board provides policy guidance and budgetary authority to nine Regional Boards, which conduct planning, permitting, and enforcement activities. The State Board shares the authority for implementation of the Clean Water Act and the State Porter-Cologne Act with the Regional Boards. The water quality near the Refinery is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

State Implementation Policy On April 28, 2000 the Office of Administrative Law approved the Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, also referred to as the State Implementation Policy (SIP). As defined by the SWRCB, enclosed bays are indentations along the coast that enclose an area of oceanic water within distinct headlands or harbor works. San Francisco Bay and its constituent parts, including San Pablo Bay, fall under this category. The SWRCB adopted the policy in March 2000. On May 18, 2000, the US EPA published in the Federal Register the California Toxics Rule (CTR) establishing water quality standards for toxic pollutants for California waters (FR 31681). The SIP, developed as a statewide plan for all enclosed bays and estuaries, became fully effective on May 18, 2000 because it was conditioned on the effective date of the CTR.

The SIP establishes the policy for determining effluent limitations for toxic pollutants. The SIP establishes the implementation policy for all toxic pollutants including dioxins and furans. The SIP also requires monitoring for a minimum of 3 years by all major NPDES dischargers for the seventeen dioxin and furan compounds, whether or not a limit is necessary to prevent exceedance of the water quality standard that has been established for the dioxin compound known as 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). In summary, the steps involve:

• Identifying applicable criteria and objectives; • Determining whether there is a reasonable potential for the pollutant to cause or contribute to exceedance of a water quality criterion or objective; and • Calculating a value for the effluent limit taking into consideration the applicable criteria or objective, and discharge variability; and

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-16 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality

• If a TMDL is in effect, assigning a portion of the loading capacity to the discharge.

Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Region (Basin Plan) The RWQCB is responsible for developing and implementing the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Region (Basin Plan), which documents approaches to implementing state and federal policies in the context of actual water quality conditions. The Regional Board’s other activities include permitting of waste discharges, and implementing monitoring programs of pollutant effects.

On November 17, 2004, the Board certified a revised Basin Plan, which the SWRCB and the Office of Administrative Law previously adopted in 1995. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of receiving waters, water quality objectives imposed to protect the designated beneficial uses, and strategies and schedules for achieving water quality objectives. Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act requires Basin Plans to include water quality objectives governing approximately 68 of US EPA’s list of 126 pollutants.

Water Quality objectives are achieved primarily through the establishment and enforcement of Waste Discharge Requirements for each wastewater discharger. State policy for water quality control in California is directed toward achieving the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State. Therefore, all water resources must be protected from pollution and nuisance that may occur from waste discharges. Beneficial uses of surface waters, ground waters, marshes, and mud flats serve as a basis for establishing water quality standards and discharge prohibitions to attain this goal.

Waste Discharge Requirements (Point Source) Point source discharges are subject to federal regulations that are implemented at the state level by the Regional Board. Prior to any point source discharge that could affect the quality of the water of the State, the discharger must file a report of waste discharge with the Regional Board. After any necessary public hearings, the Regional Board prescribes Waste Discharge Requirements, which implement the water quality control plans. Under the Porter-Cologne Act, Waste Discharge Requirements serve as NPDES permits.

Another point source control strategy of the State is the requirement to use site-specific Best Management Practices and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. These individual or combined measures are those that are the most practical and effective which, when applied, prevent or minimize the potential release of toxic or hazardous pollutants in significant amounts to receiving waters. A Best Management Practices Program is required to include information on potential releases and management of solid and hazardous waste.

Contra Costa Clean Water Program The Contra Costa Clean Water Program was established as the local entity responsible for implementing compliance with the federal Clean Water Act to control stormwater pollution. It is comprised of Contra Costa County, 16 incorporated cities, and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The program is being conducted in compliance with the

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-17 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality municipal NPDES Permit No. CAS0029912 issued by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permit contains a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the “maximum extent practicable” and mandated that participating municipalities implement an approved stormwater management plan by September 1, 1993. The program incorporates Best Management Practices (BMPs) that include construction controls (such as a model grading ordinance), legal and regulatory approaches (such as stormwater ordinances), public education and industrial outreach (to encourage the reduction of pollutants at various sources), inspection activities, wet- weather monitoring, and special studies.

The RWQCB added provision C.3 to the stormwater permit in February 2003. In accordance with these updated requirements, new development and redevelopment projects are required to incorporate treatment measures and other appropriate source control and site design features to reduce the pollutant load in stormwater discharges and manage runoff flows. The Proposed Project would not be subject to these requirements because stormwater flows from the Refinery are already discharged to its water treatment plant and regulated under the existing NPDES permit.

Contra Costa County General Plan The Proposed Project must be consistent with the goals and policies of the Contra Costa County General Plan. These goals and policies are summarized as follows:

A water resources goal to conserve, enhance, and manage water resources, protect their quality, and assure an adequate long-term supply of water for domestic, fishing, industrial, and agricultural use. Policies • To preserve watersheds and groundwater recharge areas by avoiding the placement of potential pollution sources in areas with high percolation rates; • To preserve and enhance the quality of surface and groundwater resources; • To require on-site water control of major new developments so that no increase in peak flows occurs relative to the site's pre-development condition….; • To conduct grading, filling, and construction activity near watercourses so as to minimize impacts from increased runoff, erosion, sedimentation, biochemical degradation, or thermal pollution; and, • To require groundwater monitoring programs for all large-scale commercial and industrial facilities using wells.

Groundwater Quality Industrial facilities, such as the Refinery, are often associated with areas containing contaminated soil and groundwater. The following hazardous waste laws and regulations place restrictions on certain facilities that generate wastes considered to be hazardous, which includes soil contaminated with chemicals, fuels, oils, and other substances. These regulations also protect groundwater from hazardous materials that could leach through contaminated soils.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-18 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality

Federal Requirements Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). To implement the following laws, the US EPA has developed regulations that provide the general framework of the national hazardous waste management system. Hazardous waste sites, including those with contaminated soil and groundwater, are subject to one or more of the following regulations:

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). RCRA was enacted in 1974 as the first step in regulating the potential health and environmental issues associated with solid hazardous and non-hazardous waste disposal. Under RCRA, US EPA regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. Under RCRA, individual states may implement their own hazardous waste management programs, as long as they are consistent with and at least as stringent as RCRA. US EPA must approve state programs intended to implement RCRA requirements.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Also known as Superfund, CERCLA was enacted in 1980 to ensure that a source of funds was available to clean up abandoned hazardous waste dumps, address releases of hazardous materials, and establish liability standards for responsible parties.

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). SARA amended CERCLA in 1986 to increase Superfund funding, modify contaminated site cleanup criteria, and revise settlement procedures. It also provides a regulatory program for leaking underground storage tank cleanups, and a broad, emergency planning and community right-to-know program.

State, Regional and Local Requirements Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Regional Board shares groundwater quality enforcement responsibility with the Department of Toxic Substances Control. In the area the San Francisco Bay Basin, the Regional Board, San Francisco Bay Region, has identified over 5,400 sites with confirmed releases of constituents of concern which have polluted or threaten to pollute groundwater. For each individual polluted site, the Regional Board approves all proposed groundwater and soil cleanup levels. Cleanup activities are required by the Regional Board to be performed in a manner that promotes attainment of background water quality, or the highest water quality that is reasonable, if background levels of water quality cannot be restored.

Contra Costa County General Plan. The County General Plan identifies the ConocoPhillips Refinery as a site involved in hazardous materials management. When handling hazardous materials at a site involved with groundwater extraction or construction, the site must be in compliance with permitting and other regulatory requirements. 4.9.3 Significance Criteria and Discussion of No Impacts Significance Criteria For the purposes of this EIR and consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Proposed Project would be considered to have a significant impact if it would:

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-19 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge; c) Substantially alter the existing drainage patterns in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off the site; d) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off the site; e) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or proposed stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; f) Substantially degrade water quality; g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area; h) Place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows; i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk associated with flooding; or j) Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

Discussion of No Impacts Review and comparison of the setting circumstances and Proposed Project characteristics with the significance criteria stated above, clearly show that no impacts would be associated with some of the above criteria. The following provides a discussion of each topic area for which there would be no hydrology and water quality impact: b. Would the Proposed Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge?

The Proposed Project would not include groundwater extraction or other activities that would affect groundwater supplies. Water used for the Proposed Project processes would be provided by the public water supply. In addition, all Proposed Project elements would be constructed within previously developed areas would not substantially increase the area of impervious surfaces at the site. Therefore the Proposed Project would have no impact on groundwater recharge. c. Would the Proposed Project substantially alter the existing drainage patterns in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off the site?

The Proposed Project elements would all be constructed within the previously developed areas, where runoff is controlled and treated before discharge. Thus, drainage patterns would not be altered and the Proposed Project would have no impact. d. Would the Proposed Project substantially alter the existing drainage patterns in a manner that would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off the site?

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-20 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality

As mentioned above, the Proposed Project elements would all be constructed within the previously developed areas of the Refinery, where runoff is controlled. Thus, drainage patterns would not be altered and there would be no increased potential for flooding. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact. e. Would the Proposed Project create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or proposed storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

The wastewater treatment plant currently processes 3.3 MGD of wastewater including treatment of storm water runoff. The treatment system has the capacity to treat approximately 10 MGD and store approximately 19.8 million gallons in tanks and 10.2 million gallons in retention basins. The Proposed Project elements would be constructed within developed areas of the Refinery, where runoff is controlled. Thus, runoff drainage patterns and quantities would not be altered and there would be no potential for flooding, on-site or off-site, and no substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Thus, in operation, the Proposed Project would have no impact.

However, consideration and discussion of the conditions and the related potential water quality effects that could occur while the Proposed Project is under construction are presented under Impact 4.9-2, in Section 4.9.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, below. f. Would the Proposed Project substantially degrade water quality?

The wastewater treatment plant currently processes 3.3 MGD of wastewater that includes treatment of all wastewater and storm water runoff. The treatment system has the capacity to treat approximately 10 MGD and store approximately 19.8 million gallons in tanks and 10.2 million gallons in retention basins. The Proposed Project elements would all be constructed within the previously developed areas of the Refinery, where runoff is controlled

The water quality of the receiving waters would not be substantially changed by the Proposed Project. The changes that are anticipated are discussed in Section 4.9.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, under Impact 4.9-1, below. However, there are no elements of the Proposed Project that would substantially degrade water quality, so there would be no impact. g. Would the Proposed Project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area?

The Proposed Project does not include construction of housing. Therefore, there would be no impact.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-21 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality h. Would the Proposed Project place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows?

The Proposed Project would not locate structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, there would be no impact. i. Would the Proposed Project expose people or structures to a significant risk associated with flooding?

Because the Proposed Project does not include any element within a 100-year flood hazard area, there would be no risk of flooding associated with the Proposed Project. Therefore, there would be no impact. j. Would the Proposed Project be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

As described` above in the Setting section above, the Proposed Project would not be located in an area that would likely be affected by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, there would be no impact.

The remaining criteria are discussed in Section 4.9.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, under Impacts 4.9-1 and 4.9-2, and Section 4.9.5, Cumulative Impacts, Impact 4.9-3, below.

4.9.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 4.9-1: The Proposed Project could result in an increase of pollutants, including toxic metals and chemicals, in the process wastewater stream and in effluent discharges to receiving waters. This would be a less-than-significant impact.

The Proposed Project would result in an increase of process water treated and discharged through the wastewater treatment plant. There are currently several sources of process wastewater from the Refinery:

• Cooling tower water – This water matches the incoming supply water to the Refinery with a slightly higher mineral content due to the concentrating effect of evaporation of circulated water used for cooling.

• Boiler blowdown6 – Treated water from the boiler which contains water treatment chemicals.

• Sour water – Water used in the refinery that contains ammonia, sulfur (as hydrogen sulfide – H2S) and selenium. This water is treated in the sour water stripper and subsequently the sulfur plant to remove sulfur and ammonia and treated in the Selenium Reduction Plant to remove selenium.

The Proposed Project is estimated to increase the total flow to the wastewater treatment plant by 97,920 gallons per day (GPD), which would represent a 3 percent increase over the current average of 3.3 million gallons per day (MGD). The majority of this increased flow would come

6 Blowdown refers to the condensate or water in a steam line that is blown or collected by steam pressure.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-22 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality from cooling tower blowdown as well as some boiler blowdown water. The treatment plant has the capacity to treat a total of 10 MGD. The Proposed Project would produce more sour water but it would be recycled as opposed to discharged through either the selenium reduction plant or the wastewater treatment plant.

Although not guaranteed, it is possible that the pollutant loading to the effluent discharge would not increase. The metals content of the crude oil feed into the Refinery would not change from the existing source material and the proposed Hydrocracker Unit 246 would include de-metalization catalysts to remove metals as part of the process. These metal constituents would be less likely to be found in process water.

Among the pollutants that are contained within the effluent discharge, bioaccumulative pollutants, such as selenium, are considered most likely to detrimentally affect the beneficial uses of the San Pablo Bay. Selenium discharged from area refineries primarily originates from crude oil. ConocoPhillips has estimated that the Proposed Project would not increase process selenium sludge and copper cake that would be generated and disposed of as a solid hazardous waste.

Through the NPDES permitting process, the RWQCB sets forth effluent limitations for surface water pollutants including selenium. These effluent limits are based on the National Toxics Rule, California Toxics Rule, State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the Basin Plan. As shown on Table 4.9-1, during the period of January 2003 to August 2005, the daily maximum effluent discharges of the constituents in the wastewater effluent, including selenium, were below the maximum daily limitation established through the NPDES permit with two exceptions. The daily maximum for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) under the NPDES permit is 473 kilograms per day and during the reported period was exceeded at 5,557 kilograms per day. The daily maximum for copper was exceeded from the daily maximum of 37 at a reported concentration of 69.5. Sampling conducted from March 2005 to November 2005, under a new NPDES permit and following commencement of the Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel modernization project, has shown all constituents including TSS and copper to be below NPDES permit requirements (ERM, 2005). However, subsequent sampling showed excursions above the copper limit on two days, April 12 and April 17, 2006. Results were 78 and 43 ppb, respectively, against the interim copper maximum daily limit of 37 ppb.

The State of California has developed an Antidegradation Policy, which is consistent with the federal policy under 40 CFR 131.12. The Antidegradation Policy requires waste discharge requirements for any activity which may produce increased volumes or concentrations of waste discharge in high quality waters (State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 68-167). The Antidegradation Policy applies to inland surface waters, ocean waters, and groundwater. Should there be a potential for significant increase in effluent pollutant discharge, the RWQCB may require an industrial discharger to submit an Antidegradation Report, which would address mass increases of pollutants discharged and propose new treatment process units, if necessary, to maintain water quality. The purpose of the Antidegradation assessment and report is to ensure

7 Resolution 68-16 is the “Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California.”

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-23 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality that before any changes in discharge volume or concentration are implemented under the NPDES permitting process, there is sufficient data indicating that existing water quality can be maintained.

In addition, the RWQCB would have the authority to modify (according to CFR 40 122.62(a)(1)), but not revoke and reissue (unless ConocoPhillips requests or agrees), the existing NPDES permit under certain circumstances specified in the NPDES regulations. The RWQCB, however, requires consistency with adopted water quality objectives in consideration of NPDES discharge limits. In developing discharge limits, the RWQCB would use all available technical sources for water quality data. For ConocoPhillips to continue compliance with the existing conditions of the NPDES Permit, they must file with the RWQCB a report of waste discharge at least 120 days before making any material change or proposed change in the character, location or volume of the discharge.

With an increase of total flow into the water treatment plant, the Proposed Project may increase some pollutant loads of some trace metals discharged from outfall 002 including chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and selenium. However, the proposed estimate of a 3 percent increase in total flow coupled with the source of the flow coming from mostly cooling tower blowdown, suggests that any increase would be less than significant. The effluent NPDES discharge limits are based on water quality standards established by the RWQCB to protect water quality, human health and the health of aquatic organisms in San Pablo Bay. Continued compliance with these limits – including interim limits restricting discharges of 303(d)-listed pollutants to current levels – is intended to ensure that Proposed Project-related changes in the discharge would not cause a significant adverse change in existing water quality.

The RWQCB has primary regulatory authority to determine and assign effluent discharge limits for the ConocoPhillips Refinery. This authority enables the RWQCB to request appropriate analyses, determine impacts to receiving waters, and, if necessary, require amendments to the NPDES permits. The RWQCB would use this information to determine whether changes in the current NPDES permit may be needed to ensure that the permit remains effective in protecting water quality. Therefore, this impact is considered to be less-than-significant.

Mitigation: None required.

______

Impact 4.9-2: Construction activities could generate wastewater and storm water runoff volumes that could increase wastewater or combined inflows into the wastewater treatment plant. This increase would not result in an exceedance of the available hydraulic and/or treatment capacity of the wastewater treatment plant or an exceedances of the effluent limits of the existing NPDES permit. This would be a less-than-significant impact.

The Proposed Project would only slightly increase impervious surface area within the Refinery. Most of the proposed components would be located in the main processing area where storm water is directed to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Construction activities such as grading,

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-24 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality excavation, and construction could result in generation of contaminants that if not properly managed could accumulate and discharge to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Contaminants can include sediment, petroleum hydrocarbons, oils and grease, and other chemicals associated with construction activities. Grading operations generate silt and clay that are fine-grained enough to become entrained in storm water runoff.

ConocoPhillips has a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that requires all phases of the Proposed Project to implement best management practices (BMPs) to reduce and eliminate storm water runoff. Per the SWPPP, the contractor would be required to implement these BMPs and perform routine inspection and maintenance of the BMPs through all phases of construction. Therefore this potential impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.

______

4.9.5 Cumulative Impacts Impact 4.9-3: The accumulative wastewater flows from the Proposed Project and wastewater flows, storm water flows, and atmospheric deposition from point and non-point sources within the vicinity of the Proposed Project could increase pollutant discharges to San Pablo Bay. The increased contribution of the Proposed Project would not be cumulatively considerable. This impact would be less-than-significant.

Although there are uncertainties in the amounts of increases, if any, in Proposed Project toxic metal and chemical loading, the Proposed Project’s impact would be mitigated by NPDES discharge requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The waste streams would be treated by the wastewater treatment plant prior to discharge and would have to comply with NPDES discharge limitations. The Proposed Project in combination with other projects at neighboring refineries and the non-refinery projects in the Proposed Project area that have effluent discharges and air discharges contribute controlled amounts of pollutants to the San Pablo Bay. Cumulatively, these discharges and emissions are assimilated into the surface waters.

Discharges from point sources to the waters of the United States are regulated by the RWQCB through the establishment of limitations that are required to be followed by dischargers to manage effluent and emission concentrations of contaminants. The bases for discharge and emission limits and requirements include the Federal Water Pollution Act, Federal Code of Regulations: Title 40, San Francisco Water Quality Control Plan, California Toxics Rule, National Toxics Rule, State Implementation Policy, US EPA Quality Criteria for Water and the Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. Discharges to the San Pablo Bay are regulated under waste discharge and air emission requirements that are determined based on water quality standards. Under the current environment, the RWQCB determines these limits to protect the San Pablo Bay Watershed and these requirements are the most stringent regulatory mechanisms to manage waste discharges to receiving water bodies. The Refinery’s contribution is controlled by the discharge

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-25 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality limits in the NPDES permit and eventually would be considered by the RWQCB under the regional TMDL programs. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.

______

References – Hydrology and Water Quality Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County General Plan (2005 – 2020). January 2005.

ENSR, International, Draft Environmental Impact Report, ConocoPhillips Company – Ultra Low /sulfur Diesel/Strategic Modernization Project at the San Francisco refinery in Rodeo, California, December 12, 2002.

Environmental Resources Management (ERM), Rodeo Clean Fuels Expansion Project, Hydrology/Water Quality Supplement, November 2005.

Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), approved November 17, 2004, http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb2/basinplan.htm, 2004.

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1980. USGS Topographic Map, Benicia, California.

Western Regional Climate Center, (WRCC), website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- bin/cliMAIN.pl?carchm+sfo, accessed June 12, 2006.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.9-26 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.10 Land Use, Plans and Policies

• The Proposed Project would be located within the developed area of the Refinery and would not divide an established community. • The Proposed Project would be consistent with the Heavy Industry land use designation for the Refinery site and would comply with applicable land use plans and policies. • The Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Impacts to land use plans and policies either would be less than significant or would result in no impact. No mitigation measures are required.

4.10.1 Introduction This section evaluates the potential of the Clean Fuels Expansion Project (CFEP) to physically divide an established community; to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; or to conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

The evaluation considers the Proposed Project’s relationship to regional and local land use patterns and the General Plan and zoning designations for the Proposed Project area.

4.10.2 Setting

4.10.2.1 Regional Setting Contra Costa County has been one of the fastest-growing counties in the San Francisco Bay Area since the 1970s. Of the 481,430 total acres of land in the County, approximately 122,100 acres had been developed as of the year 2000 (Contra Costa County, 2005a). The Contra Costa County General Plan (2005) divides the County into three distinct areas: West County, Central County, and East County. Although there is significant suburban development along the northern portion of East County, the primary land uses there are agriculture and general open space. The primary land uses for the West and Central County areas are residential, commercial, and industrial. The West County area contains approximately 20 percent of the urbanized land, with approximately 10 percent developed with industrial uses. Countywide, the primary developed land use is

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.10-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use, Plans and Policies residential (14 percent). The remaining developed land uses include local serving employment1, basic employment2, and streets/highways (Contra Costa County, 2005a).

4.10.2.2 Adjacent Land Uses The Refinery is located on County unincorporated land near the town of Rodeo, which is located in the West Contra Costa County area. This area supports a wide range of land uses, ranging from heavy industry to open space. The land use designations for the area as provided by the General Plan (2005) are illustrated on Figure 4.10-1. The land uses that surround the Refinery are described as follows:

• North: As shown on Figure 4.10-1, between the shoreline and the I-80 right-of-way, the Refinery is bordered to the north by the Valero Shore Terminal, which includes a storage tank field that lies between San Pablo Avenue and I-80. The land use designation for the Valero Shore Terminal is Heavy Industry (HI). The HI area is penetrated by Public/Semi- Public (PS) designations for the railroad and I-80 highway right-of-ways. Most of the area north and east of the Valero Terminal is designated Agricultural Lands (AL), Public/Semi- Public (PS) and Open Space (OS), with the exception of the small residential neighborhood of Tormey, which lies immediately north and east of the STS facilities. As shown on Figure 4.10-2, the Tormey neighborhood is zoned single-family residential (R-6).

• On the east side of the I-80 right-of-way, the land north of the Refinery is undeveloped. The land use designation is Parks and Recreation (PR), but the zoning is heavy industrial (H-I). The PR designation is inconsistent with the H-I zoning.

• East: The eastern border of the Refinery abuts undeveloped land with an AL land use designation. The zoning for this area is Agricultural Preserve District (A-4).

• South: Immediately south of the 300- to 600-foot Refinery buffer area, which is maintained to separate active Refinery uses and adjacent land uses, is the Bayo Vista residential area. The commercial and residential areas of the community of Rodeo are located further to the south. The Bayo Vista area supports single- and multi-family residential development. Except for one parcel zoned General Agricultural District (A-2) and another zoned H-I, all land abutting the Refinery’s south property line is zoned Planned Unit District (P-1).

West: San Pablo Bay, which supports the Refinery’s marine terminal operations, lies west of the Refinery. The land use designation for the Bay is Water (WA). The zoning designation is Unrestricted (U).

1 Local serving employment land uses are occupied by local serving industries and businesses, such as offices; churches; schools below the state level; hospitals; local and rapid transit; communications and utilities; restaurants; banks, credit agencies, insurance brokers and agents’ offices, and real estate offices; and local government agencies. 2 Basic employment land uses include manufacturing land uses or those that export products or act as suppliers to other regional industries, including heavy industrial, food processing, high technology manufacturing, long distance transportation, colleges and universities, and federal and State governments.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.10-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report CROCKETT

San Pablo Bay TORMEY 80

e u n e VAL ERO v A Cum ming Property Line lo s b S a ky P w n ay a S

CR (Commercial Recreation) RODEORODEO

BAYO VISTA

N NOT TO SCALE

ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project SOURCE: Contra Costa Community Development Department, 2006. Figure 4.10-1 Existing Land Use Designations AA-4-4 RR-6-6 AA-2-2 AA-2-2 0 2000 U HH-I-I HH-I-I Feet VALEROVALERO nue ablo Ave n P Sa

AA-4-4

HH-I-I

HH-I-I HH-I-I

C SSanan PabloPablo BayBay

U HH-I-I RRODEOODEO SEWAGESEWAGE DISTRICTDISTRICT HH-I-I

PP-1-1 AA-2-2

BAYOBAYO VISTAVISTA PP-1-1 PP-1-1

Property Line H-I Heavy Industrial U Unrestricted District R-6 Single Family Residential M-29 Multiple Family Residential A-2 General Agricultural C General Commercial R-7 Single Family Residential D-1 Two Family Residential A-4 Agricultural Preserve District R-B Retail Business M-17 Multiple Family Residential P-1 Planned Unit District

ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2005-11-1; ESA, 2006. Figure 4.10-2 Existing Zoning Designations 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use, Plans and Policies

4.10.2.3 Project Site Setting The Refinery encompasses a total of 1,100 acres of land, including a 495-acre industrial area where the refining facilities and equipment are located. The remaining 605 acres are undeveloped lands that serve as a buffer. Established in 1896, the Refinery was the first major oil refinery in the Bay Area. The original site occupied only 22 acres and processed 1,600 barrels of crude oil per day.

The majority of the Refinery has a General Plan land use designation of Heavy Industry. The second-most extensive land use designation is OS. Relatively small portions of the Refinery are designated Light Industry (LI), Multi Family Medium Density (MM), Multi Family Low Density (ML), Commercial Recreation (CR), and Public and Semi-Public (PS). The fenced operating areas are densely developed with process units, support facilities, storage tank farms, an administration building, and other facilities and equipment associated with the Refinery. A saltwater intake is located at the shoreline on the northwestern border of the Refinery. An East Bay Municipal Utility District easement traverses the eastern portion of the site.

Refinery Areas Refinery operations3 occur in four general geographic areas. These can be referred to as “West Refinery,” “East Refinery / Tormey Hill,” “Sulfur / MP-30 / Seasonal Storage” and “Lower Tank Farm.” The individual facilities and process units that exist in each of these areas are described in more detail in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, however, the general land use characteristics of these areas are discussed below.

West Refinery. The oldest area is the West Refinery, located west of San Pablo Avenue. Existing construction in this area dates from 1940 to 1994, with the newest process unit being the hydrogen plant (Unit 110). This area also includes the marine terminal, butane storage, railcar loading, crude oil and product storage, a cogeneration steam/power plant, shop areas, a warehouse, a laboratory and administration buildings, as well as a number of decommissioned (non-operational) units.

East Refinery / Tormey Hill. The East Refinery / Tormey Hill area is located between San Pablo Avenue and Interstate 80. This area contains the Refinery’s major petroleum processing areas. Construction in this area dates from 1940 to present.

Product storage tanks are located on the northeastern boundary of the East Refinery / Tormey Hill area as well as east of Interstate 80. Pipeline shipping operations occur at Unit 80, which is located near San Pablo Avenue in the East Refinery / Tormey Hill area. Most of the Refinery's liquid product is distributed through this unit to northern California pipelines.

Process units are located in the southern portion of the East Refinery / Tormey Hill area. These units were built in the 1970s. This area also contains decommissioned process units.

3 See also Chapter 3, Project Description, for descriptions, illustrations and maps related to these units and Refinery processes.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.10-5 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use, Plans and Policies

The undeveloped property that borders the Refinery to the east acts as visual and physical separation between the Proposed Project site and Rodeo’s residential areas; uses to the east include agriculture, open space, watershed/wetland, and other non-urban land uses.

Sulfur / MP-30 Complex / Seasonal Storage. The Sulfur / MP-30 Complex is south of the East Refinery / Tormey Hill area, while the Seasonal Storage (finished product storage) area lies across Interstate 80 from the East Refinery / Tormey Hill area. Primary design and construction of the Sulfur / MP-30 Complex area occurred from 1940 to 1970.

Lower Tank Farm. The Lower Tank Farm is south of the Sulfur / MP-30 Complex and is bounded on the east by Interstate 80. This area includes product storage, gasoline blending (Unit 76), and wastewater storage. Primary design and construction of this area occurred from 1950 to 1970. .

4.10.2.4 Regulatory Setting and Consistency with Adopted Plans Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “the EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans” as a part of the discussion of the existing setting of the project. However, the Guidelines further state that inconsistency with an adopted plan does not necessarily indicate a significant impact by the project.

This section considers adopted County and regional plans and the policies that are applicable to the Proposed Project, and determines whether the proposed project conforms with those plans and policies. Where conformance is uncertain or insufficient, impacts are called out and mitigation measures are presented. Plans that were reviewed include the County’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Conservation and Development Commission). Other local, regional or State plans and policies that relate to topical areas other than land use (such as air quality, water quality and biological resources) are discussed generally here and in more detail in the respective topical sections of this EIR.

Contra Costa County General Plan

General Plan Land Use Designations The majority of the Refinery has a General Plan land use designation of Heavy Industry (HI). The second-most extensive land use designation is OS. Relatively small portions of the Refinery are designated Light Industry (LI) and Public and Semi-Public (PS). The fenced operating areas are densely developed with process units, support facilities, storage tank farms, an administration building, and other facilities and equipment associated with the Refinery. A salt-water intake is located at the shoreline on the northwestern border of the Refinery. An East Bay Municipal Utility District easement traverses the eastern portion of the site.

Most of the Refinery is designated as Heavy Industry on the County General Plan Land Use Map. The Heavy Industry designation allows activities requiring large areas of land with convenient truck and rail access. Examples of allowed activities on Heavy Industry-designated parcels are metal working, chemical or petroleum product processing and refining, and heavy equipment

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.10-6 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use, Plans and Policies operation. Light Industry uses are also allowed. Heavy Industry uses can create land use conflicts as operations may be noisy, generate odor or dust, or otherwise warrant spatial separation from residential uses.

The following standards apply to the Heavy Industry designation:

Maximum site coverage: 30 percent Maximum building height: 40 feet Maximum floor area ratio: 0.67 Average employees per gross acre: 45 employees

A southern portion of the Refinery property is designated Light Industry. The Light Industry designation is for light industrial activities, including processing, packaging, machinery repair, fabricating, distribution, warehousing and storage, research and development, and similar uses that emit only limited amounts of smoke, noise, light, or pollutants.

Land Use Element Goals and Policies The Land Use Element includes land use goals, objectives, and policies as well as the Land Use Element Map showing existing land use designations. These goals and policies are generally summarized below:

• To coordinate land use with circulation, development of other infrastructure facilities, and protection of agriculture and open space, and to allow growth and the maintenance of the County’s quality of life. • To encourage aesthetically and functionally compatible development which reinforces the physical character and desired images of the County. • To provide for a range and distribution of land uses that serve all social and economic segments of the County and its subregions. • To encourage a development pattern that promotes the individuality and unique character of each community in the County. • Preservation and buffering of agricultural land should be encouraged as it is critical to maintaining a healthy and competitive agricultural economy and assuring a balance of land uses. Preservation and conservation of open space, wetlands, parks, hillsides and ridgelines should be encouraged as it is crucial to preserve the continued availability of unique habitats for wildlife and plants, to protect unique scenery and provide a wide range of recreational opportunities for County residents. • Review proposed land development projects for consistency with land use designations and relevant policies and standards of each Element of the General Plan. The Land Use Element also includes a number of policies specific to the Rodeo area. The following policies apply are applicable to the Proposed Project:

• Mitigate the affects of industrial traffic on downtown streets. • A buffer of agricultural lands around the ConocoPhillips property is created to separate the Viewpoint residential area from future industrial development on the ConocoPhillips property. These open space lands should remain essentially undeveloped.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.10-7 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use, Plans and Policies

(Contra Costa County, 2005)

Growth Management, 65/35 Standard, and Urban Limit Line In 1990, the voters of Contra Costa County passed Measure C-1990, which established the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. The purpose of the Standard is to limit urban development to no more than 35 percent of the land in the County. Conversely, Measure C-1990 requires that no less than 65 percent of the land in the County be preserved for parks, open space, agriculture, wetlands, and other non-urban uses. The 65/35 Land Preservation Standard is a policy that applies to the County planning process and is implemented through the establishment of the Urban Limit Line (ULL), which is aimed at limiting annexation, extension of urban services and urban-type development in areas beyond the ULL. In 2000, the County conducted a land use inventory to assess its development status relative to the 65/35 standard. That analysis measured the developed or urban area of the County at 30 percent and the undeveloped or non-urban portion at 70 percent (Contra Costa County, 2000). The ULL is incorporated into the 2005 Contra Costa County General Plan. The Proposed Project site is located within the ULL of Contra Costa County (Contra Costa County, 2005).

Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance The County Zoning Ordinance is contained in Title 8 of the County Ordinance Code. The vast majority of the Refinery is zoned Heavy Industrial. The Heavy Industrial zoning designation permits heavy industrial manufacturing uses of all kinds, including, but not limited to, the manufacturing or processing of petroleum, lumber, steel, chemicals, explosives, fertilizers, gas, rubber, paper, cement, sugar, and all other industrial or manufacturing products. A wide range of other uses may be permitted in the Heavy Industrial zoning district upon approval of a land use permit. Heavy Industrial uses can create land use conflicts as operations may be noisy, generate odor or dust, or otherwise warrant spatial separation from residential and other sensitive land uses (Contra Costa County, 2005).

A Land Use Permit for the Proposed Project is required under Ordinance 84-63, Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Material.

Bay Conservation and Development Commission The original San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan) was completed and adopted by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) in 1968. The Bay Plan has since been amended on numerous occasions, the last of which was December 2005. The Bay Plan was prepared by BCDC pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965. The McAteer-Petris Act directs BCDC to exercise its authority to issue or deny permit applications for placing fill, extracting materials, or changing the use of any land, water, or structure within the area of its jurisdiction, in conformity with the provisions and policies of both the McAteer-Petris Act and the Bay Plan. BCDC jurisdiction is defined as the band of land 100 feet shoreward from the line of highest tidal action, and specified tributary creeks. In addition, BCDC has an advisory role relating to activities in historic baylands; BCDC reviews any such proposed activities for consistency with

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.10-8 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use, Plans and Policies their policies, and submits its comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for its consideration. The Bay Plan identifies five high-priority uses of the Bay and shoreline for which shoreline areas should be reserved. These “priority uses” are ports, water-related industry4, airports, wildlife refuges, and water-related recreation. Plan Map 15 of the San Francisco Bay Plan designates the Refinery as a port and as a water-related industry.

The following Bay Plan Water-Related Industry policies would apply to the Proposed Project:

Water Quality Policy 1: Bay water pollution should be prevented to the greatest extent feasible. The Bay's tidal marshes, tidal flats, and water surface area and volume should be conserved and, whenever possible, restored and increased to protect and improve water quality. Policy 3: New projects should be sited, designed, constructed and maintained to prevent or, if prevention is infeasible, to minimize the discharge of pollutants into the Bay by: (a) controlling pollutant sources at the project site; (b) using construction materials that contain non-polluting materials; and (c) applying appropriate, accepted and effective best management practices, especially where water dispersion is poor and near shellfish beds and other significant biotic resources.

Protection of the Shoreline Policy 3: Authorized protective projects should be regularly maintained according to a long- term maintenance program to assure that the shoreline would be protected from tidal erosion and that the effects of the erosion control project on natural resources during the life of the project would be the minimum necessary.

Navigational Safety and Oil Spill Prevention Policy 1: Physical obstructions to safe navigation, as identified by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Harbor Safety Committee of the San Francisco Bay Region, should be removed to the maximum extent feasible when their removal would contribute to navigational safety and would not create significant adverse environmental impacts.

Ports Policy 1: Development of port facilities with the least potential adverse environmental impacts while still providing for reasonable terminal development. Policy 3: Port priority use areas should be protected for marine terminals and directly related ancillary activities such as container freight stations, transit sheds and other temporary storage, ship repairing, support transportation uses including trucking and railroad yards, freight forwarders, government offices related to the port activity, chandlers, and marine services. Other uses, especially public access and public and commercial recreational development should also be permissible uses provided they do not significantly impair the efficient utilization of the port area. (BCDC, 2005).

4 A water-related industry is defined as an industry that requires “a waterfront location on navigable, deep water to receive raw materials and distribute finished products by ship, thereby gaining a significant transportation cost advantage.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.10-9 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use, Plans and Policies

Bay Area Air Quality Management District The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the agency with permit authority over most types of stationary air emission sources in the Bay Area. BAAQMD exercises permit authority through its Rules and Regulations. The BAAQMD regulates air emissions for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating adverse air quality effects within the region.

BAAQMD permits - Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate – would be required for most individual units of the Proposed Project. The BAAQMD would use this EIR, together with their detailed review of the air permit applications for the components of the Proposed Project to determine the Project’s compliance with the applicable District Rules and Regulations and the Regional Air Quality Plans. See Section 4.2, Air Quality, for a detailed discussion.

Regional Water Quality Control Board The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is responsible for developing and implementing the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Region (Basin Plan), which documents approaches to implementing state and federal policies in the context of actual water quality conditions. The Regional Board’s other activities include permitting of waste discharges, and implementing monitoring programs of pollutant effects.

On November 17, 2004, the Board certified a revised Basin Plan that identifies beneficial uses of receiving waters, water quality objectives imposed to protect the designated beneficial uses, and strategies and schedules for achieving water quality objectives. Section 303 (c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act requires Basin Plans to include water quality objectives governing approximately 68 of US EPA’s list of 126 pollutants.

Water Quality objectives are achieved primarily through the establishment and enforcement of Waste Discharge Requirements for each wastewater discharger, including the ConocoPhillips Refinery. Waste Discharge permits issued by the RWQCB would be required for the Proposed Project. See Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a detailed description.

Compliance with regional Water Quality Plans is indicated by compliance with the waste discharge permits and with the Rules and Regulations of the RWQCB. The RWQCB uses their detailed NPDES review of the components of the Proposed Project to determine the Project’s compliance with their applicable Rules and Regulations and, hence, compliance with the regional Water Quality Plans.

4.10.3 Significance Criteria and Discussion of No Impacts

Significance Criteria The significance criteria for this analysis are the criteria presented in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G. The project may be deemed to have a significant impact on the environment if it would:

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.10-10 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use, Plans and Policies a) Physically divide an established community; b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; or c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

Discussion of No Land Use Impact issues Review and comparison of the setting circumstances and Proposed Project characteristics with two of the three significance criteria stated above, clearly show that no impacts would result for the first and the third land use criteria. The following discusses the reasoning supporting this conclusion: a. Potential of the Proposed Project to divide an established community.

The nearest established community, the Bayo Vista neighborhood, is located south of the undeveloped area of the active Refinery. The existing Refinery, established in 1896, predates and does not divide that established community. The Proposed Project would be constructed within the existing footprint of the already-developed portions of the Refinery, in physically distinct areas that would not directly interact with surrounding land uses. Development would not encroach into portions of the existing open space buffer and, as such, would not physically divide an existing established community. Finally, the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial alteration of present or planned future land uses in the area. Thus, the Proposed Project would not result in the division of an established community. There would be no impact. c. Potential of the Proposed Project to conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact would occur.

The Proposed Project would not be located within an area identified in a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. In addition, there are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans proposed for adoption that would include Refinery property. The Proposed Project would have no impact on a habitat conservation plan or a natural community conservation plan. A discussion of special-status species that the Proposed Project could potentially impact can be found in Section 4.3, Biological Resources.

4.10.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures The project was evaluated for consistency with the Contra Costa County General Plan and other relevant local and regional plans and policies, which are described above. It is noted that, while the potential policy inconsistencies resulting from the project do not qualify as significant

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.10-11 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use, Plans and Policies environmental impacts, physical environmental impacts were identified elsewhere in this document. In some instances, the measures recommended to mitigate identified physical impacts also reconcile policy inconsistencies.

Although they would not be considered to be land use impacts, project construction-related activities that could affect adjacent land uses are discussed in Sections 4.1, Aesthetics, Visual Quality, Light and Glare; 4.2, Air Quality; 4.11, Noise; and, 4.13, Transportation/Traffic. As discussed in Section 3.5, Project Construction, construction activities would begin in 2007 and continue through 2008. Construction-related impacts would be relatively short-term in nature and would not continue after the project begins full operation. In general, the physical construction- related effects on adjacent land uses would be less-than-significant impacts. Certain physical construction-related effects would require the mitigation measures identified in those sections to reduce those impacts to less than significant. For analyses and discussions of these construction- related impacts, please refer to the above-identified sections.

Impact 4.10-1: The Proposed Project would be in general conformance with applicable regional or local plans and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. There would be the potential for some inconsistencies between the construction and operation of the Proposed Project and applicable regional plans and policies. This would be a less-than-significant impact.

The Refinery property is mainly designated Heavy Industry in the Contra Costa General Plan and Heavy Industrial (H-I) on the Zoning Map. Heavy industrial uses are permitted by right under the H-I zoning, but a Land Use Permit is required for all projects involving the use and/or transport of large quantities of hazardous materials. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the uses designated for the site by the Contra Costa General Plan, would not conflict with any applicable County land use plans and policies and would be contained within the County ULL. The Proposed Project would also be consistent with the land uses identified in the BCDC Bay Plan. Therefore potential environmental impacts associated with Contra Costa County planning policies, zoning, and growth management, and with the Bay Plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects would be less than significant.

Environmental plans and policies5, such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy and the RWQCB’s Water Quality plans, directly address physical environmental issues and/or contain standards or targets that must be met in order to preserve or improve specific components of the County’s physical environment. Both agencies consider that compliance of a project with their regional plans is indicated by compliance with their individual

5 Most sections of Chapter 4 of this EIR consider the Proposed Project’s conformance with the applicable regional plans as it relates to the topical environmental section of the EIR. These plans include specific elements of the Contra Costa County General Plan, BAAQMD, ABAG, MTC and the RWQCB. Please see each section of Chapter 4 for further discussion of these plans in context to the Proposed Project.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.10-12 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use, Plans and Policies

Rules and Regulations. The Proposed Project, as mitigated, would be in compliance with the applicable plans and policies and therefore the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.

4.10.6 Cumulative Land Use Impacts

Impact 4.10-2: The Proposed Project, together with proposed and planned future development at the Refinery and in the surrounding area, would not conflict with adopted plans, so the Proposed Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative land use impact. This would be a less-than-significant cumulative impact.

The construction and operation of the Proposed Project, in addition to other Refinery projects and other non-refinery development, would not result in cumulative impacts to land use. Development and its cumulative effects are considered in the development of the Contra Costa County General Plan and as discussed in Impact 4.10-1 above, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the adopted General Plan and its applicable land use designations and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects.

If cumulative land use impacts were to occur in Contra Costa County, the Proposed Project’s contribution to those impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable because the Proposed Project would not result in a change to existing land use or conflict with adopted plans at the Proposed Project site or surrounding area.

Cumulative impacts related to conflicts with BAAQMD and RWQCB regional plans for air quality and water quality are analyzed in Sections 4.2 and 4.9, respectively, of this EIR. The Proposed Project’s contribution to those impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable because the Proposed Project would have less-than-significant impacts.

Mitigation: None required.

References – Land Use, Plans and Policies Contra Costa County, 2005a. Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), January 2005.

Contra Costa County, 2005b. Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance, available online at http://www.ordlink.com/codes/ccosta/_DATA/TITLE08/index.html, updated October 2005.

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), 2005. The San Francisco Bay Plan, as amended through December 2005.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.10-13 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.11 Noise

• The Proposed Project would affect the ambient noise environment during both the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Project. • Since the Proposed Project would be located on Refinery property, Proposed Project-related noise impacts would primarily affect offsite residential receptors located to the south of the Refinery. Existing daytime ambient noise levels at these residential receptors are in the order of 61–65 dBA, CNEL. Using a noise threshold of 60 dBA and 55 dBA for speech interference during daytime and nighttime, respectively, for construction activities and a 3-dBA increase in CNEL over the existing conditions as the significance threshold for operational activities, the Proposed Project would lead to the following potentially significant, mitigable impacts. • Noise during construction of the Proposed Project would temporarily increase the ambient noise levels at the residential receptors to levels above the daytime and nighttime speech interference thresholds. This impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. • Noise from operation of the proposed Hydrogen Plant could potentially increase noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors by 3 dBA CNEL, which would result in a perceptible noise increase in a residential area already categorized as “conditionally acceptable” for residential land uses under the County General Plan. This impact would be mitigated by establishing a performance noise standard at the property line to be met through the use of engineering and/or operational controls.

4.11.1 Introduction This section addresses noise impacts associated with the Proposed Project. It analyzes potential noise impacts caused by both construction and operation of the Proposed Project. Background information on environmental acoustics, including definitions of terms commonly used in noise analysis, is also provided in this section.

Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that include the rate of oscillation of sound waves (frequency), the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content (amplitude). In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. Sound pressure level is measured in decibels (dB), with zero dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing, and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain.

Sound pressure fluctuations can be measured in units of hertz (Hz), which correspond to the frequency of a particular sound. Typically, sound does not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies varying in levels of magnitude (sound power). When all the

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.11-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Noise audible frequencies of a sound are measured, a sound spectrum is plotted consisting of a range of frequency spanning 20 to 20,000 Hz. The sound pressure level, therefore, constitutes the additive force exerted by a sound corresponding to the sound frequency/sound power level spectrum.

The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that de-emphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hz and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ear’s decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of A- weighted decibels (dBA).1 Frequency A-weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de-emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements.

4.11.1.1 Noise Exposure and Community Noise An individual’s noise exposure is a measure of the noise experienced by the individual over a period of time. A noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. However, noise levels rarely persist consistently over a long period of time. Rather, community noise varies continuously with time with respect to the contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes throughout a typical day, but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources such as traffic and atmospheric conditions. What makes community noise constantly variable throughout a day, besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short duration single-event noise sources (e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens), which are readily identifiable to the individual.

These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment vary the community noise level from instant to instant requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts. This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise descriptors. The most frequently used noise descriptors are summarized below:

Leq: The equivalent sound level is used to describe noise over a specified period of time, typically one hour, in terms of a single numerical value. The Leq is the constant sound level which would contain the same acoustic energy as the varying sound level, during the same time period (i.e., the average noise exposure level for the given time period).

Lmax: The instantaneous maximum noise level measured during the measurement period of interest.

Lmin: The instantaneous minimum noise level measured during the measurement period of interest.

1 All noise levels reported herein reflect A-weighted decibels unless otherwise stated.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.11-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Noise

Lx: The sound level that is equaled or exceeded x percent of a specified time period. The L50 represents the median sound level. L90 represents the background noise level.

DNL: Day/night average sound level (also noted as Ldn), the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period that accounts for the greater sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise by weighting noise levels at night (“penalizing” nighttime noises). Noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is weighted (penalized) by adding 10 dBA to take into account the greater annoyance of nighttime noises.

CNEL: Similar to the DNL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) adds a 5-dBA “penalty” for the evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. in addition to a 10-dBA penalty between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

4.11.1.2 Effects of Noise on People The effects of noise on people can be divided into three categories:

• Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning – The thresholds for speech interference indoors are about 45 dBA if the noise is steady and above 55 dBA if the noise is fluctuating. Outdoors, the thresholds are about 15 dBA higher. Interior residential standards for multi-family dwellings are set by the State of California at 45 DNL. The standard is designed for sleep and speech protection and most jurisdictions, including Contra Costa County, apply the same criterion for all residential uses.

• Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction – Based on attitude surveys used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas, the main causes for annoyance are interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The DNL as a measure has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. Three aspects of community noise are most important in determining subjective response – the level of sound, the frequency composition or spectrum of the sound, and the variation of sound level with time.

• Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling – While physical damage to the ear from an intense noise impulse is rare, a degradation of auditory acuity can occur even within a community noise environment. Hearing loss occurs mainly due to chronic exposure to excessive noise, but may be due to a single event such as an explosion. Natural hearing loss associated with aging may also be accelerated from chronic exposure to loud noise.

Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants generally experience noise in the last category. There is no universal measure for the subjective effects of noise, nor does a measure exist for the corresponding human reactions from noise annoyance. This is due to the wide variation in the individual thresholds of annoyance, and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.

Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so called “ambient noise” level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.11-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Noise less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. Therefore a new noise source will be judged more annoying in a quiet area than it would be in a noisier area. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships exist:

• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference; • A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and • A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause adverse community response. These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system. The human ear perceives sound in a non-linear fashion, hence the decibel scale was developed. Because the decibel scale is based on logarithms, two noise sources do not combine in a simple additive fashion, rather logarithmically. For example, if two identical noise sources produce noise levels of 50 dBA, the combined sound level would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA.

4.11.2 Setting

4.11.2.1 Regulatory Setting Noise issues applicable to the Proposed Project are addressed in local General Plan policies, and local noise ordinance standards.

The Noise Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan contains goals and policies to reduce or eliminate the effects of excessive noise in the community. Goals strive to improve the overall environment in the County by reducing annoying and physically harmful levels of noise and maintaining appropriate noise conditions in all areas of the County. The County also strives to ensure that new developments will be constructed to limit the effects of exterior noise on the residents, at the same time recognizing the economic impacts of noise control and encouraging an equitable distribution of these costs.

To this end, the County General Plan requires that new projects meet acceptable exterior noise level standards as established in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines contained in Figure 11-6 (see Table 4.11-1). These guidelines, along with future noise contour maps contained in the General Plan, are to be used by the County as a guide for evaluating the compatibility of “noise sensitive” projects in potentially noisy areas. If an area is currently below the maximum “normally acceptable” noise level, an increase in noise up to the maximum is not necessarily to be allowed.

The General Plan Noise Element also establishes a DNL standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas of 60 dB. However the County recognizes that, a DNL of 60 dB or less may not be achievable in all residential areas due to economic or aesthetic constraints.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.11-4 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Noise

TABLE 4.11-1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS, dBA

Community Noise Exposure, DNL or CNEL

Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Land Use Category Acceptablea Acceptableb Unacceptablec Unacceptabled

Residential – Low Density Single < 60 55 to 70 70 to 75 > 75 Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes Residential – Multi Family < 65 60 to 70 70 to 75 > 75 Transient Lodging – Motels, Hotels < 65 60 to 70 70 to 80 > 80 Schools, Libraries, Churches, < 70 60 to 70 70 to 80 > 80 Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditoriums, Concert Halls, – < 70 – > 65 Amphitheatres Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator – < 75 – > 70 Sports Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks < 70 – 67.5 to 75 > 72.5 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water < 75 – 70 to 80 > 80 Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business, < 70 67.5 to 77.5 > 75 – Commercial and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, < 75 70 to 80 > 75 – Agriculture

a Normally Acceptable – Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. b Conditionally Acceptable – New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. c Normally Unacceptable – New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. d Clearly Unacceptable – New construction or development clearly should not be undertaken.

SOURCE: Contra Costa County General Plan, Noise Element – Figure 11-6. January 2005.

Construction activities are to be concentrated during the hours of the day that are not noise- sensitive for adjacent land uses and commissioned to occur during normal work hours of the day to provide relative quiet during the more sensitive evening and early morning periods.

The Noise Element establishes noise exposure standards for land use compatibility (see Table 4.11-1). The ConocoPhillips Refinery site is zoned for heavy industrial use and contains a 300 to 600 foot refinery buffer area. The area to the south and southwest of the Refinery buffer area is zoned Planned Unit District (P-1) and occupied by multi-family residential uses. For industrial land uses within the County, the normally acceptable noise level is in the range of 50 to 75 dBA DNL, and the conditionally acceptable range is 70 to 80 dBA DNL. For multi-family residential land uses, the normally acceptable noise level is in the range of 50 to 65 dBA DNL, and the conditionally acceptable range is 60 to 70 dBA DNL. Policy 11-2 of the Noise Element sets the standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas at 60 dB, DNL. However, Policy 11- 3 states that if the primary noise source is train pass by events, then the standard for outdoor noise

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.11-5 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Noise levels in residential areas is a DNL of 70 dB. A higher DNL is allowable since the DNL is controlled by a relatively few number of train pass by events that are disruptive outdoors only for short periods. Even though the DNL may be high, during the majority of the time, the noise level will be acceptable. Based on monitoring conducted by ESA in residential areas near the Refinery, operations are consistent (conditionally acceptable) with the Noise Element (See discussion below under Existing Setting).

Contra Costa County does not have an ordinance specifically addressing noise. Noise complaints within the unincorporated area of the county are addressed through application of peace disturbance sections of the County Code and application of generic nuisance ordinances of the County Code.

4.11.2.2 Existing Setting

Sensitive Receptors There are no noise-sensitive uses that immediately adjoin the developed part of the Refinery. Interstate 80 runs north-south through the Refinery property, dividing the eastern portion of the Refinery. The Refinery site is zoned Heavy Industrial. Most of the Refinery site is designated as Heavy Industry on the County General Plan Land Use Element Map. Land uses to the northeast of the Refinery are a combination of industrial, open space, public and semi-public and agricultural; east is primarily open space, public and semi-public and agricultural; south and southeast of the 300 to 600-foot Refinery buffer zone is residential. The closest residences in the Bayo Vista neighborhood to the south are located approximately 2,100 feet away from the Hydrocracker expansion unit and approximately 3,000 feet from the proposed Hydrogen Plant and Sulfur Recovery Units (SRU). (Contra Costa County, 2005).

Noise Sources and Ambient Noise Levels Transportation sources, such as automobiles, trucks, trains, and aircraft, are the principal sources of noise in most urban environments. Along major transportation corridors in Contra Costa County, noise levels can reach 82 dBA DNL, while along arterial streets, noise levels typically reach 73 dBA DNL. Industrial and commercial equipment and operations also contribute to the ambient noise environment in their vicinities.

The ambient noise environment at the Proposed Project site is dominated by existing operations at the Refinery, vehicular traffic on Interstate 80 and rail traffic on the Southern Pacific Railway tracks.

To establish a baseline to evaluate Proposed Project-related increases in noise level at sensitive uses around the Refinery, noise measurements were taken at representative locations around the Refinery. These noise-monitoring locations are shown in Figure 4.11-1. The noise monitoring locations have varying views of the Refinery process block and the overall Refinery due to the surrounding topography. Noise measurements were made using Metrosonics dB-308 Sound Level Meters. The meters were calibrated before and after the surveys with a Metrosonics acoustical

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.11-6 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report Location ST- 2

Location LT- 2

Location ST- 3

Location ST- 1 Location LT-1

ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project SOURCE: ConocoPhillips Figure 4.11-1 Location of Noise Monitoring Sites 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Noise calibrator. Table 4.11-2 lists the noise monitoring locations and their distance from the center of the process block in which the Proposed Project would be located, and summarizes the range of average daytime and nighttime ambient noise levels measured at each of these locations along with the calculated DNL.

TABLE 4.11-2 AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS AT MONITORED LOCATIONS, dBA

Noise Level in dBA Measurement Period a Site Location (January 2006) Leq CNEL

LT-1 Near Refinery fence line near Hillcrest 24-Hour Measurement 51 – 58 61 Elementary School LT-2 Near Refinery fence line near terminus of 24-Hour Measurement 56 - 60 65 Trigger Road ST-1 At the intersection of San Pablo Avenue 12.10- 12.20 p.m. 68 NA and California Street ST-2 At the end of Trigger Road near the 12.28– 12.38 p.m. 61 NA Refinery boundary ST-3 Residence on Tullibee Road 12.45 – 12.55 p.m. 58 NA

a Locations correspond to those illustrated in Figure 4.11-1. NA = Not Applicable.

SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2006

Sensitive uses are primarily located to the south and southeast of the Refinery. Therefore noise monitoring focused on locations to the south within the Bayo Vista residential community The residential community of Viewpoint is located over 4,000 feet from the proposed improvements and across Interstate 80, which provides a substantial noise source that effectively masks noise from plant operations. There are also some single family residences to the north, but due to the intervening topography, noise from the Refinery is a much smaller contributor to the ambient noise environment at these residences.

Long-term (24-hour) measurements were taken at two locations determined to represent the most- affected sensitive receptors as they are located closest to the Refinery’s developed area. Both locations also have a clear line of sight to the Refinery that would allow for unobstructed noise propagation from the Refinery. In addition, though these locations are influenced by noise from Interstate 80 and/or activity along the Southern Pacific tracks, Refinery noise is distinctly audible over these other sources. Therefore any change in noise from the Refinery would be more perceptible at these locations than at locations where non-Refinery noise sources dominate the noise environment. The long-term measurement locations are described below.

Location 1 The first long-term measurement was taken at the intersection of California Street with 5th Street near the former Hillcrest Elementary School and the Hillcrest air monitoring station. This point is located approximately 3,400 feet from the proposed hydrocracker expansion unit, 2,800 feet from

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.11-8 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Noise the proposed new sulfur recovery unit and approximately 5,000 feet from the proposed Hydrogen Plant. The noise environment at this location is dominated by two sources: Interstate 80 which is located approximately 1,250 feet to the east of the site and the Refinery, located to the north of the site. While the Refinery noise is fairly constant, noise from the freeway changes over the day. Therefore, long-term measurements were taken to capture this variation. The monitored CNEL was 61 dBA which is in the normally acceptable range for schools according to the Contra Costa

County General Plan. The CNEL, daytime and nighttime Leq values are shown in Table 4.11-2.

Location 2 The second long-term measurement was taken at the Refinery’s southern fence line adjacent to residences in the Bayo Vista community. This point is located approximately 2,100 feet away from the Hydrocracker expansion unit, 2,300 feet from the proposed new sulfur recovery unit and approximately 3,000 feet from where the proposed Hydrogen Plant and SRU would be located. The noise environment at this site is dominated by noise from the Refinery and intermittent noise from rail activity along the Southern Pacific tracks located approximately 1,250 feet to the west. The monitored CNEL was 65 dBA which is in the conditionally acceptable range for residential uses according to the Contra Costa County General Plan. The CNEL, daytime and nighttime Leq values are shown in Table 4.11-2.

In addition, several short-term measurements were taken at locations at and around the Refinery. The monitored data also are summarized in Table 4.11-2.

4.11.3 Significance Criteria and Discussion of No Impact

Significance Criteria Based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant effect on the environment with respect to noise if it would result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; b) Exposure of persons to, or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; or

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.11-9 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Noise f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

A change in noise levels of less than 3 dBA is not discernible to the general population; an increase in average noise levels of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible, while an increase of 5 dBA is considered readily perceptible to most people (Caltrans, 1998).

To assess changes in the ambient noise environment due to the Proposed Project, the following significance criteria take into account both the absolute change in noise levels due to the Proposed Project and the relationship between the resultant noise level and the County’s noise/land use compatibility standards (see Table 4.11-1). Where the resultant noise level would remain “normally acceptable” for the affected land use, a change of 5-dBA DNL or more would be considered significant. Where the resultant noise level would be in the range described as “conditionally acceptable” or “normally unacceptable,” a change of 3-dBA DNL or more over existing noise levels would be considered significant, and where the resultant noise level would be “clearly unacceptable,” any increase in noise over existing levels would be considered significant.

Based on long term noise monitoring data presented in Table 4.11-2, the ambient noise level at potentially affected residential areas to the south of the Refinery is within the conditionally acceptable range. Therefore, based on the noise/land use compatibility guidelines found in the Noise Element of the County’s General Plan, a 3-dBA DNL increase at the residential uses would be considered significant for both construction and operational impacts.

Discussion of No Noise Impacts Review and comparison of the setting circumstances and Proposed Project characteristics with significance criteria stated above, clearly show that no noise impacts would result for some criteria. The following discusses the reasoning supporting this conclusion: b. Would the Proposed Project result in the exposure of persons to, or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Equipment proposed to be installed under elements of the Proposed Project would not be sources of groundborne vibration or noise levels. Activities to construct the Proposed Project, including grading and construction of foundations, would also not be sources of groundborne vibration or noise levels. Vibrations and groundborne noise are more typically associated with blasting, pile driving and major transit construction. Blasting and pile driving are not required or proposed for Proposed Project improvements. Therefore, there would be no impact with regard to groundborne vibration and noise. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; or

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.11-10 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Noise f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

There are no public use airports or private airstrips located within a two-mile radius of the project site, nor is the site located within an airport land use plan. Therefore the Proposed Project would not expose people to excessive noise levels associated with aircraft operations. There would be no impact.

4.11.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact 4.11-1: Operation of equipment to be installed as part of the Proposed Project could result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan. This impact would be less than significant.

Additional noise-generating equipment that would be installed as part of the Proposed Project. The types of equipment that would be installed are shown in Table 4.11-3. This table is a list of noise-producing equipment and does not include all components of the proposed improvements. This equipment would be similar to the units already in operation at the Refinery. Since the noise emission characteristics for the specific noise sources that would be constructed or modified are not available, it is expected that the new equipment would have similar noise characteristics as the existing facilities and equipment. Also, the Proposed Project would locate equipment in an internal area of the Refinery and would not introduce new noise sources closer to the perimeter of the site (i.e., closer to off-site sensitive receptors). Table 4.11-4 shows noise levels associated with the use of typical equipment, such as pumps, compressors, cooling fans, etc.

TABLE 4.11-3 CONOCOPHILLIPS CFEP - LIST OF PROJECT EQUIPMENT

Location Equipment

Unit 246 - UNISAR Heater/ compressor/pumps Unit 244 - Reformer Pumps Unit 248 - Unicracker Pumps Unit 76 – Product Blending Pumps Unit 215 – Deisobutanizer Pumps Units 236 and 238 – Sulfur Pump Fan Exchanger Plant Unit 120 Hydrogen Plant Furnace/compressor

SOURCE: ESA, 2006.

With the exception of the proposed Hydrogen Plant and SRU, noise-producing improvements proposed by the Project would consist of the upgrading or installation of new pumps and heat

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.11-11 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Noise

TABLE 4.11-4 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT, dBA

Equipment Horsepower Noise Level at 3 feet Noise Level at 2,100 feet

Pump <100 88–91 31–34 Pumps 400 94 37 Air Cooler 25 85 28 Cooler Fan 30 85 28

Compressor 3,500 101.5a 45

Heater – 96.5a 40

a Noise levels based on actual measurements conducted at the Refinery, ESA, February 2003.

SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2003.

exchangers. Changes in noise from these improvements would be generally increased by the addition of new larger pumps (400 hp). The noise monitored from existing large pumps was predominant to the degree that it masked the noise from the smaller pumps and heaters. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, Proposed Project elements at Units 246, 244, 248, 76, 215, 236 and 238 were assumed to result in installation of a 400 hp pump at each unit and to be the primary noise source from these units.. The new pump at Unit 246 was assumed to be 2,100 feet from the nearest receptor, while all others were assumed to be 3,000 feet from the nearest receptor based upon aerial photographs (see Figure 3-3). As stated earlier ambient noise levels in the nearby residential areas were measured to be approximately 61–65 dBA, CNEL. Since the noise generated by the Proposed Project equipment would attenuate to less than 50 dBA at the receptors, pump noise would not be audible over the existing noise at these receptors. Thus, no significant noise impacts would be expected from increased throughput improvements.

The noise specification for the Hydrogen Plant is 85 dBA at 3 feet. This plant would be located 3,000 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor in the Bayo Vista neighborhood. Assuming an attenuation of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, noise from the Hydrogen Plant would attenuate to less than 50 dBA at this location, which would not be audible over existing noise. Thus, no significant noise impacts would be expected from the Hydrogen Plant.

Based upon the above analysis, the noise environment of the nearest sensitive receptors would be unaffected by proposed improvements and would remain in the conditionally acceptable range for residential uses according to the Contra Costa County General Plan.

Mitigation: None required.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.11-12 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Noise

Impact 4.11-2: Operation of equipment to be installed as part of the Proposed Project could result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Proposed Project vicinity above levels existing without the Proposed Project. This impact would be less than significant.

As discussed in Impact 4.11-1, proposed throughput improvements would result in the addition of noise levels of less than 50 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptors as would the installation of the new Hydrogen Plant. Combined, these new noise sources would not noticeably increase noise levels at the nearest residences, where existing hourly ambient noise levels were monitored to be 57 to 60 dBA for all hours of the 24 hour period. Consequently, the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity.

In the long-term scenario (i.e., operation of the Proposed Project), the Proposed Project would result in the creation of 44 new commute trips and 18 new truck trips per day. Therefore, the proposed facility improvements would result in addition of 62 vehicle trips on San Pablo Avenue and Cummings Skyway2. Based on the traffic analysis San Pablo Avenue currently has a peak hour traffic volume of 308 vehicles, which translates to an approximate daily volume of 3,000 vehicles. An increase in roadway volumes of 100 percent (a doubling of sound energy) is necessary to cause a 3-dBA increase in noise levels. An increase in traffic volume of less than 70 trips per day would therefore be a less-than-significant impact, particularly since these trucks would be accessing the Proposed Project site using Cummings Skyway and portions of San Pablo Avenue that are generally buffered from nearby residences by adjacent hillsides.

Changes in marine operations resulting from the Proposed Project would result in a net increase of 18 vessel trips per year and a net decrease of 139 barge trips per year. Hence, as a whole, the Proposed Project would result in a net reduction of marine activity and its associated noise impacts.

Rail deliveries would increase by three rail cars per day. These additional rail cars would be added to existing freight deliveries and would not necessitate the operation of additional locomotives or result in additional noise events.

Mitigation: None required.

______

Impact 4.11-3: Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would intermittently and temporarily generate noise levels above existing ambient levels in the Proposed Project vicinity over the duration of the construction period. This potentially significant impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementing Mitigation Measures 4.11-3a and 4.11-3b.

Proposed Project construction is scheduled to begin in the first quarter of 2007 and to be completed in the third quarter of 2008. Construction noise levels at and near the Proposed Project site would fluctuate depending on the particular construction activities and the particular type,

2 This analysis assumes that all traffic would use this route, which would result in the worst-case noise impact.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.11-13 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Noise number, and duration of use of various types of construction equipment. The effect of construction noise would depend upon how much noise would be generated by construction activity, the distance between construction activities and the nearest noise-sensitive uses, and the existing noise levels at those uses.

As discussed earlier, the nearest sensitive receptors that could be affected by Proposed Project construction activity noise are situated approximately 2,100 feet to the south of the Refinery.

The magnitude of construction noise generated depends upon the activity or the equipment in operation at a given time. Specific data on the types and numbers of pieces of construction equipment that would be operating during different phases of Proposed Project construction are not available at this time. Table 4.11-5 shows noise levels generated by construction of typical commercial projects for each construction stage. Table 4.11-6 shows typical noise levels produced by various types of construction equipment. Noise levels during the noisiest phases of construction can reach 89 dBA at 50 feet.

TABLE 4.11-5 TYPICAL COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS

Noise Levela Construction Phase (dBA, Leq at 50 feet )

Ground Clearing 84 Excavation 89 Foundations 78 Erection 85 Exterior Finishing 89

a Noise level estimates correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase and 200 feet from the other equipment associated with that phase.

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971

Noise from construction activity generally attenuates (decreases) at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Conservatively assuming an attenuation of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, the noisiest construction activities could lead to noise levels of 58 Leq at the nearest sensitive receptors located approximately 2,100 feet from the construction site. If this activity were to occur 24-hours a day it would result in a DNL of 64 at the nearest receptors. Given that ambient noise levels at receptors within the Bayo Vista neighborhood to the south of the Refinery is 65 dBA, DNL, these predicted construction noise levels would result in an increased DNL of less than 3 dBA. Consequently, while construction noise could be audible over the existing ambient noise during quieter periods, it would not exceed the significance criteria previously established based on the noise/land use compatibility guidelines in the General Plan Noise Element. Therefore, construction noise would be considered a less-than-significant impact. Noise levels at sensitive receptors during other construction phases would be less than significant as they would attenuate to levels below the existing ambient levels.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.11-14 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Noise

TABLE 4.11-6 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

Noise Levela Construction Equipment (dBA, Leq at 50 feet )

Dump Truck 88 Portable Air Compressor 81 Concrete Mixer (Truck) 85 Scraper 89 Jack Hammer 88 Dozer 85 Paver 89 Generator 81 Backhoe 80

a Noise level estimates correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the equipment.

SOURCE: U.S. DOT, 1995.

Construction-related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes. Construction traffic would be required to use Cummings Skyway to minimize traffic and noise impacts through the town of Rodeo. The nearest residences to the haul routes would be in Tormey. The actual increase would depend on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used; however, a maximum of about 80 daily truck trips and 1,516 daily automobile trips would occur. Given that San Pablo has a current daily volume of about 3,000 trips, the construction traffic increase would be approximately 50 percent. Applying the noise principles discussed earlier, this would be a less than 3 dBA increase, which would be a less-than- significant increase in traffic noise.

Mitigation Measure 4.11-3a: Construction contractors shall be required to ensure that construction equipment is well tuned and maintained according to the manufacturer’s specifications, and that the equipment’s standard noise reduction devices are in good working order.

Mitigation Measure 4.11-3b: To minimize noise impacts to Bayo Vista and Rodeo during Proposed Project construction, all construction-related traffic shall access the site from the north, using Cummings Skyway to San Pablo Avenue. Construction-related traffic shall not deviate from this route, except in the event that the route is rendered impassable due to accidents or other unanticipated road closures. In the event that this route becomes impassable for an extended period of time, ConocoPhillips shall consult with Contra Costa County to determine an acceptable alternate route.

Significance after Mitigation: Given the temporary nature of this construction noise, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11.3a and 4.11.3b would reduce impacts related to construction to a less-than-significant level.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.11-15 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Noise

______

4.11.5 Cumulative Noise Impacts

Impact 4.11-4: The Proposed Project together with proposed and planned future development at the Refinery, nearby refineries, and in Rodeo in general, could result in cumulative increase in noise levels. This impact would be less-than-significant.

There are no other approved or proposed projects at the Refinery or in the vicinity of the Refinery that would lead to cumulative noise impacts along with the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s less-than-significant individual impacts would also be a less-than-significant cumulative impact.

Mitigation: None required.

______

References – Noise Caltrans, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects, October 1998.

Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County General Plan 2005 - 2020, January 2005

Environmental Science Associates, ConocoPhillips ULSD/Strategic Modernization Project Draft EIR, 2003.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.11-16 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.12 Public Services

The Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to public services, as follows: • The Proposed Project would have no affect on the ability of the Rodeo- Hercules Fire Department to provide fire suppression and emergency response services to the Refinery or other parts of the community of Rodeo. • The Proposed Project would have no affect on the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department’s ability to provide police protection services to the Refinery and community of Rodeo. • The Proposed Project would have no affect on the John Swett Unified School District to adequately provide educational services to residents of Rodeo. • The Proposed Project would have no affect other public services such as libraries or hospitals. In summary, there would be no impacts to public services.

4.12.1 Introduction This section discusses the potential impacts to public services, including the Proposed Project’s relationship to existing fire, police, school, and other public services including hospitals and libraries provided in the community of Rodeo and in Contra Costa County. The discussion related to parks and recreational impacts is provided in Section 4.18, Parks and Recreation.

4.12.2 Setting

4.12.2.1 Fire Protection The Rodeo-Hercules Fire District (RHFD) provides fire protection services to the area. The response time goal for the Fire District is to provide service within five minutes of notification. The RHFD maintains two locations in the area and provides fire protection and emergency medical aid to the unincorporated area of Rodeo and the City of Hercules. The Fire District location closest to the Refinery is the Rodeo Station #75, located approximately 3/4 of a mile south of the Refinery at 326 3rd Street in Rodeo. Additional services are available from the Hercules Station #76, located approximately three miles southeast of the Refinery at 1680 Refugio Valley Road in Hercules. The two Fire District Stations service a 25 square mile area. In 2004, the Fire District responded to 164 fires, 1,270 rescue and medical calls, and 59 hazardous materials management incidents. These two stations employ approximately 20 staff. (RHFD, 2006).

The Fire District’s Rodeo and Hercules stations are part of a five station battalion that provides mutual aid assistance to the Refinery if required. For example, the Rodeo and Hercules stations

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.12-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services are supported by the Pinole Fire Department, Crocket/Carquinez Fire Department, and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District in the event that back-up assistance is needed.

In addition to the Fire Protection services provided by the Fire District, the Refinery maintains trained personnel and equipment to provide emergency response capabilities. The Refinery also is a member of the Bay Area Petrochemical Industry Mutual Aid Organization, which is composed of more than half a dozen refineries and chemical plants whose operators have agreed to provide one another with emergency response resources in the event of a major emergency.

4.12.2.2 Police Protection Public protection services are provided in Contra Costa County by various city police departments and the County Sheriff. Rodeo is served by the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office and the California Highway Patrol. The County Sheriff’s Office has a staff total of 1,148 sworn personnel and 370 general employees. The Sheriffs’ Patrol Division provides uniformed law enforcement services to the residents who either live in part of Contra Costa's 521 square miles of unincorporated land, a contract city or a special district. A network of Station Houses, each of which is commanded by a Lieutenant, enables efficient provision of law enforcement services to the 162,000 residents of the unincorporated areas of the County. Rodeo is serviced by the Bay Station, located at 5555 Giant Highway in Richmond, approximately 8 miles southwest of the Refinery. (Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, 2006a)

The Bay Station responds to calls for service, including 911 calls. Response times for the Bay Station area depend upon the priority of the call, with emergency calls given priority over non- emergency calls. As of July 2003, actual response times averaged four minutes. The average response times for non-emergency calls as of July 2003 was 10 minutes. (Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, 2006b).

The California Highway Patrol also provides public protection to the area, and the station closest to the Refinery is the Contra Costa County Station, located on 5001 Blum Road in Martinez approximately 15 miles east of the Refinery. The primary mission of the California Highway Patrol is "the management and regulation of traffic to achieve safe, lawful, and efficient use of the highway transportation system." As a major statewide law enforcement agency, the secondary mission of the Department is to assist in emergencies exceeding local capabilities. The Patrol also provides disaster and lifesaving assistance.

In addition to the police protection services provided by the County’s Sheriff’s Office and the State Highway Patrol, the Refinery maintains trained personnel to provide on-site security and safety capabilities. The security personnel monitor site access to the Refinery and provide additional security and safety services to Refinery personnel.

4.12.2.3 Public Schools The John Swett Unified School District (JSUSD) provides public school services to the Proposed Project area. The Rodeo area is served by Rodeo Hills Elementary School, located at 545

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.12-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services

Garretson Street in Rodeo; Carquinez Middle School, located at 1099 Pomona Street in Crockett; and John Swett High School, located at 1098 Pomona Street in Crockett. In addition, the area is also served by Willow High School, an alternative/continuing education high school located at 1650 Crockett Boulevard in Crockett. For the 2003-2004 school year, total enrollment was 695 at Rodeo Hills Elementary School, 452 at Carquinez Middle School, 622 at John Swett High School, and 49 students at Willow High School (John Swett Unified School District, 2006).

4.12.2.4 Other Public Services and Facilities Other public facilities in the community include medical facilities and libraries. There are no hospitals located in the community of Rodeo; however, there are eight hospitals in Contra Costa County. The closest hospital is the Doctors Hospital of Pinole, located approximately 2.6 miles from the Refinery. Doctors Hospital of Pinole is one of the two campuses of the Doctors Medical Center San Pablo/Pinole, operated by the West Contra Costa Healthcare District. Doctors Medical Center has a 232-bed hospital in San Pablo including an emergency room. Besides emergency services, Doctors Medical Center provides a full range of health services, including a regional burn and wound care center, cancer treatment, a cardiac center, and obstetrics. The Pinole campus, located at 2151 Appian Way, provides same day surgery, cardiac rehabilitation, and a sleep disorder lab (Doctors Medical Center, 2006).

The closest library is the Contra Costa County Public Library in Rodeo, approximately 1.4 miles from the Refinery, on 220 Pacific Avenue. The library was established in 1959. The building is owned by the County and is 864 square feet.

4.12.2.5 Regulatory Setting

Contra Costa County General Plan The Contra Costa County General Plan provides goals and policies to support adequate public services for the community. These goals and policies are summarized as follows:

• Ensure a high standard of police and fire protection, emergency, and medical response services for all citizens and properties through out Contra Costa County. • Assure the provision of adequate primary, secondary, and college facilities in the County. • Assure high quality civic, medical, and other community facilities are provided to meet the broad range of needs within unincorporated areas of the County. (Contra Costa County, 2005)

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.12-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services

4.12.3 Public Services Significance Criteria and Discussion of No Impact

Significance Criteria California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G, states that a project would have a significant impact to public services if it would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection and emergency response; b) Police protection; c) Schools; or d) Other public facilities.

Discussion of No Impact Review and comparison of the setting circumstances and Proposed Project characteristics with each of the four significance criteria stated above, clearly show that no impacts would result with respect to the following two issues. The following discusses the reasoning supporting this conclusion: a. Would the Proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection and emergency response?

Given that the ConocoPhillips currently provides internal fire protection and emergency services and has adequate emergency personnel, equipment and response times, the Proposed Project would not increase the demand for fire protection services. Therefore, it is not expected that the Proposed Project would affect service ratios or response times or increase the use of existing fire protection or emergency facilities such that substantial physical deterioration, alteration, or expansion of these facilities would occur. No significant impacts from construction or operation would occur. b. Would the Proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection?

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.12-4 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services

Given that the ConocoPhillips currently provides internal security services and has adequate protection personnel, equipment and response times, the Proposed Project would not increase the demand for police protection services. Therefore, it is not expected that the Proposed Project would affect service ratios or response times or increase the use of existing police facilities such that substantial physical deterioration, alteration, or expansion of these facilities would occur. No significant impacts from construction or operation would occur. c. Would the Proposed Project affect the ability of the John Swett Unified School District to adequately provide public school services to residents of Rodeo?

As the Proposed Project does not include a residential component, there would be no additional children in the John Swett Unified School District. Therefore, no new facilities would be necessary to serve the Proposed Project, so no adverse environmental impacts from facility construction and operation would occur. No significant impacts from construction or operation would occur. d. Would the Proposed Project affect other public facilities?

The Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the area. Any short-term increase in population due to construction activities is considered to be minimal, as the majority of required construction workers currently reside within commuting distance. The Proposed Project would be constructed entirely within Refinery property, and therefore would not require physical alteration of public facilities. No impacts would occur.

The projected increases in traffic as a result of the Proposed Project could increase the need for road maintenance operations. This increased need for services is not expected to require changes in public works staffing levels or equipment for the County. Therefore, no further constraints would be placed on any current public services providers such as hospitals or libraries as a result of the Proposed Project. No significant impacts from construction or operation would occur.

4.12.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures As described in Section 4.12.3, the Proposed Project would result in no impact to public services; no mitigation would be required.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.12-5 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services

4.12.5 Cumulative Public Services Impacts

Impact 4.12-3: The Proposed Project together with proposed and planned future development at the Refinery would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impact to public services. No impact.

As described and discussed in Section 4.12.3 above, the construction and operation of the Proposed Project and other Refinery projects would have no impacts to public services in the vicinity of the Refinery. Therefore, the Proposed Project could not contribute to any cumulative effect resulting from other cumulative projects described in Section 5.2.3, Specific Projects Considered in the Cumulative Analysis. No impact.

Mitigation: None required.

References – Public Services Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), January 2005.

Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, 2006a. www.cocosheriff.org/patrol/station_houses/bay/bay.htm, accessed February 7, 2006.

Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, 2006b. www.cocosheriff.org/crime_statistics/archive_stats.htm, accessed February 7, 2006.

Doctors Medical Center, 2006. http://www.doctorsmedicalcenter.org, accessed February 7, 2006.

John Swett Unified School District (JSUSD), www.jsusd.k12.ca.us/schools.htm, accessed February 19, 2006.

Rodeo-Hercules Fire Department (RHFD), Rodeo-Hercules Fire District Statistics, www.rhfd.org/, accessed February 7, 2006.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.12-6 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4.13 Transportation and Traffic

The construction phase of the Proposed Project would generate about 1,600 average daily trips, including 80 a.m. peak-hour trips and 762 p.m. peak-hour trips. Most a.m. trips to the Refinery (90%) would be off-peak hours, whereas most p.m. trips would be during peak-hours. • Proposed Project-generated increases in traffic volumes at area intersections would result in a less-than-significant impact to peak-hour traffic operations. • Proposed Project-generated peak-hour increases in traffic volumes on the I-80 freeway in the Proposed Project area would result in a less-than-significant impact to peak-hour peak-direction traffic operations. • Potential overlapping of Proposed Project construction with other construction projects (e.g., the Parker Avenue Improvements Project), with possible increases in temporary and intermittent delays experienced by motorists on area roadways, can be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-2, which specifies that all construction-related traffic shall access the site from the north, using Cummings Skyway to San Pablo Avenue. Construction- related traffic shall not deviate from this route, except in the event that the route is rendered impassable due to accidents or other unanticipated road closures. In the event that this route becomes impassable for an extended period of time, ConocoPhillips shall consult with Contra Costa County to determine an acceptable alternate route. • Potential damage or wear of public roadways due to Proposed Project- generated increases in heavy truck traffic can be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-4, which specifies that both prior to, and after, Proposed Project construction, ConocoPhillips shall document to the satisfaction of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, the road conditions of the construction route that would be used by Proposed Project construction-related vehicles. Roads damaged by construction would be fully repaired by ConocoPhillips to a structural condition equal to that which existed prior to construction activity. Operation of the facilities following Proposed Project construction would add 27 new employees (though not all 27 people would work on the same days), generating up to 22 new trips during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In addition, about 18 new daily truck trips would be generated because of increased import and export of materials to and from the Refinery. This amount is insignificant when compared to the cumulative traffic volumes at the study area intersections and freeway mainline.

4.13.1 Introduction The following section summarizes the results of the traffic analysis for the Proposed Project prepared by ESA in May – June 2006. This section provides a discussion of the methodologies and findings of the traffic analysis, while the raw calculation worksheets and other pertinent raw data are provided in a separate Traffic Analysis and Data Report (ESA, 2006). The policies and objectives of the County of Contra Costa General Plan Circulation Element and the Congestion

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.13-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic

Management Program (CMP) of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) were reviewed for this traffic analysis.

Data used in the traffic analysis include existing (2006) peak-hour traffic counts, traffic volume projections from the CCTA’s West County Travel Demand Model, and existing freeway volumes provided from Caltrans.

Because construction would begin in the first quarter of 2007, analysis of potential project impacts were judged on the basis of a comparison of existing conditions with existing plus project conditions. Depending on whether the peak construction period for the Hydrogen Plant and other components of the Proposed Project overlap, the Project’s construction workforce is expected to reach between 484 and 834 workers. So as to not underreport potential impacts, this analysis assumed that the peak construction period for the Hydrogen Plant and other components would overlap. Furthermore, because the Project construction phase, although temporary in nature, would generate much more additional traffic on area roadways than would the continuing operations of the Refinery, the worst-case effect of the Project is considered in this analysis.

Operation of the Refinery following Proposed Project construction would add 27 new permanent employees (though not all people would work on the same days), generating about 44 new one-way commute trips. In addition, there would be about nine new truck deliveries or pickups per day (i.e., about 18 new one-way truck trips), mainly to transport sulfur from the Refinery and to deliver materials and supplies. This amount is insignificant when compared to cumulative traffic volumes at the study area intersections and freeway mainline. In addition, there would be no modification to Refinery access or to the road network that accommodates Refinery traffic.

Where potential construction impacts are identified, mitigation measures are recommended to mitigate those impacts to less-than-significant levels. Detailed traffic analysis data for the study area roadways and intersections are provided in a separate Traffic Analysis and Data Report (ESA, 2006).

4.13.2 Setting

4.13.2.1 Current Conditions

Existing Roadway Network Figure 4.13-1 illustrates the location of the ConocoPhillips Refinery in relation to the regional and local circulation network, and the study area intersections, described below.

Interstate 80 (I-80) Interstate Highway 80 (I-80) is a six-lane east-west freeway (though oriented north-south in the immediate project area), which connects Contra Costa County and Solano County via the Carquinez Bridge. I-80 is a heavily used route for commuters from Solano County and points north to the San Francisco Bay Area. In the vicinity of the ConocoPhillips Refinery, there are three interchanges: Willow Avenue, Cummings Skyway, and Pomona Street. Average daily

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.13-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic traffic on I–80 in the vicinity ranges from 127,000 to 137,000 vehicles, with peak-hour, peak- direction, traffic volumes estimated at about 6,660 vehicles between State Route 4 and the Carquinez Bridge (Caltrans, 2005).

State Route 4 (SR 4) State Route 4 (SR 4) is a four-lane divided highway that extends from I-80 to Martinez, I-680, Stockton and the Sierra foothills. Average daily traffic on SR 4 near I-80 is approximately 36,500 vehicles, with peak-hour, peak-direction, traffic volumes estimated at about 2,800 vehicles (Caltrans, 2005).

Cummings Skyway The Cummings Skyway is a two-lane arterial road extending from San Pablo Avenue west of I-80 to a connection with SR 4 located between Hercules and Martinez. The intersections at San Pablo Avenue and the I-80 eastbound ramps are signalized, and the intersection at the I-80 westbound ramps has Stop signs on Cummings Skyway (off-ramp traffic is uncontrolled).

San Pablo Avenue / Parker Avenue San Pablo Avenue / Parker Avenue is a four-lane arterial that provides north-south access in the project vicinity, and runs through the ConocoPhillips Refinery. San Pablo Avenue connects with I-80 via the Cummings Skyway interchange north of the project site and in Crockett; Parker Avenue connects with I-80 at the Willow Avenue interchange south of the project site.

Willow Avenue Willow Avenue is a four-lane road running in a northwest-southeast direction. The street connects San Pablo Avenue with State Route 4. From San Pablo Avenue, Willow Avenue provides access to I-80 and continues through northern Hercules before terminating at SR 4.

Study Intersections Six existing intersections were selected for analysis because they would be most likely be significantly affected by project construction traffic. The location and traffic controls of these intersections are shown in Figure 4.13-1. The six study area intersections are:

1. I-80 eastbound ramps / Cummings Skyway 2. I-80 westbound ramps / Cummings Skyway 3. San Pablo Avenue / Cummings Skyway 4. Willow Avenue / San Pablo Avenue 5. Willow Avenue / I-80 westbound ramps 6. Willow Avenue / I-80 eastbound ramps

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.13-3 July 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report CARQUINEZ BRIDGE N

CROCKETT

O L 2 B 1 A P S CUMMING N A S

REFINERY LOCATION

RODEO

4 5

WILLOW AVE SAN PABLO AVE 6

HERCULES

1 2 3

Skyway Skyway San Pablo I-80 I-80 SIGNAL STOP SIGN Skyway SIGNAL

4 5 6

San Pablo I-80 I-80 Willow Willow SIGNAL STOP SIGN Willow SIGNAL

ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project SOURCE: ESA Figure 4.13-1 Project Location and Road Network CARQUINEZ BRIDGE N

6655 CROCKETT (6390)

O L 2 B 1 A P S CUMMING N A S

6330

RODEO (5790)

4 5

6 WILLOW AVE SAN6660 PABLO AVE (6290)

HERCULES

1 2 3 19(19) 2(4) 310(91) 55(40) 80(582) 26(29) 5(5) 18(27) 4(15) Skyway San Pablo 37(73) Skyway 10(43) 40(156) 6(11) 337(121) 40(71) 1(6) 6(7) 14(5) 12(13) 42(41) I-80 I-80 Skyway

4 5 6 176(184) 303(475) 222(212) 182(327) 54(50) 132(257) 71(99) 125(372) 98(104) 43(78) 85(105) 48(227) San Pablo I-80 I-80 125(590) 89(86) 123(196) 53(46) LEGEND 14(29)

XX(XX) = AM(PM) 66(85) 28(34) 145(125) 226(514) 666(720) 467(298) Willow Willow Willow

ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project SOURCE: ESA Figure 4.13-2 Existing (AM/PM) Peak Hour Freeway and Intersection Volumes 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic

Existing Traffic Volumes In April 2006, a.m. and p.m. peak-period turning movement counts were conducted at the six study intersections. Figure 4.13-2 illustrates the a.m. and p.m. peak-hour traffic volumes at the six intersections, as well as a.m. and p.m. peak-hour (peak-direction) traffic volumes on I-80 in proximity to the project study area. The freeway volumes were determined on the basis of data available at Caltrans’ website (Caltrans, 2005).

Methodology The operation of a local roadway network is commonly measured and described using a grading system called Level of Service (LOS). The LOS grading system qualitatively characterizes traffic conditions associated with varying levels of vehicle traffic, ranging from LOS A (indicating free- flow traffic conditions with little or no delay experienced by motorists) to LOS F (indicating congested conditions where traffic flows exceed design capacity and result in long queues and delays). This LOS grading system applies to both signalized and unsignalized intersections. LOS A, B, and C are generally considered satisfactory service levels, while the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable (though still considered acceptable) at LOS D. LOS E and F are generally considered to be unacceptable.

Traffic conditions were evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual operations methodology (as updated in 2000) to estimate the average control delay experienced by motorists traveling through a signalized intersection, and the total delay for each stop-controlled movement at an unsignalized intersection.1 Brief descriptions of the six levels of service, as abstracted from the HCM, are shown in Table 4.13-1.

Existing Intersection Level of Service Analysis The study intersections were analyzed using the TRAFFIX level of service analysis software program, which is based on the methodologies outlined in HCM2000. As indicated in Table 4.13-2, all study area intersections currently operate with acceptable levels of service in both peak hours, with all but the Stop-sign-controlled approaches to the I-80 Westbound Ramps / Cummings Skyway intersection operating at LOS C or better. The highest-delay Cummings Skyway approach operates at an acceptable LOS D during the a.m. peak hour.

Existing Freeway Level of Service Analysis The CCTA developed the countywide CMP and updates it every two years. The CCTA Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines2 were reviewed, and because operations at the Refinery would

1 Control delay (the portion of total delay attributed to traffic signal operation for signalized intersections) includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Total delay at an unsignalized intersection is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line. 2 Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, Technical Procedures, Growth Management Program, September 1997.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.13-6 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic

TABLE 4.13-1 DEFINITIONS FOR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections

Level Average Average Total of Control Vehicle Vehicle Delay Service Delay Description (Seconds) Grade (Seconds) Description

No delay for stop- ≤10.0 A ≤10.0 Free Flow or Insignificant Delays: controlled Operations with very low delay, when signal approaches. progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green light phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Operations with >10.0 and ≤15.0 B >10.0 and ≤20.0 Stable Operation or Minimal Delays: minor delay. Generally occurs with good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized. Operations with >15.0 and ≤25.0 C >20.0 and ≤35.0 Stable Operation or Acceptable Delays: moderate delays. Higher delays resulting from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Drivers begin having to wait through more than one red light. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. Operations with >25.0 and ≤35.0 D >35.0 and ≤55.0 Approaching Unstable or Tolerable Delays: increasingly Influence of congestion becomes more unacceptable noticeable. Longer delays result from delays. unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume to capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop. Drivers may have to wait through more than one red light. Queues may develop, but dissipate rapidly, without excessive delays. Operations with >35.0 and ≤50.0 E >55.0 and ≤80.0 Unstable Operation or Significant Delays: high delays, and Considered to be the limit of acceptable long queues. delay. High delays indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths and high volume to capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Vehicles may wait through several signal cycles. Long queues form upstream from intersection. Operations with >50.0 F >80.0 Forced Flow or Excessive Delays: extreme Occurs with oversaturation when flows congestion, and exceed the intersection capacity. Represents with very high jammed conditions. Many cycle failures. delays and long Queues may block upstream intersections. queues unacceptable to most drivers.

SOURCE: Transportation Research Board, 2000.

generate fewer than 100 new peak-hour vehicle trips (the CCTA analysis threshold) after completion of project construction (see page 4.13-12, Trip Generation, for the detailed trip generation estimate), a full CMP regional traffic impact analysis is not required.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.13-7 July 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic

TABLE 4.13-2 EXISTING (2006) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Intersection Control Delay LOSa Delay LOSa

1. I-80 EB ramps / Cummings Skyway Signal 3.7 sec. A 5.6 sec. A 2. I-80 WB ramps / Cummings Skyway 2-way stop 25.1 sec. D 11.5 sec. B 3. San Pablo Avenue / Cummings Skyway Signal 14.3 sec. B 10.4 sec. B 4. Willow Avenue / San Pablo Avenue Signal 17.9 sec. B 20.4 sec. C 5. Willow Avenue / I-80 WB ramps 1-way stop 14.9 sec. B 19.1 sec. C 6. Willow Avenue / I-80 EB ramps Signal 21.8 sec. C 22.8 sec. C

a Level of service at signalized intersections represent overall intersection conditions; level of service at unsignalized intersections represent the turning movement with the worst condition.

SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2006.

Evaluation of traffic operating conditions on the mainline segments of I-80 between State Route 4 and the Carquinez Bridge is included, however, to judge the effect of project construction traffic on regional roadways. Level of service on the freeway is a function of the density of vehicles (expressed in terms of “passenger car equivalents per mile per lane”). Levels of service for the study area mainline segments are shown in Table 4.13-3.

TABLE 4.13-3 EXISTING FREEWAY MAINLINE LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

I-80 Freeway Segment Directiona Densityb LOS Directiona Densityb LOS

Between State Route 4 Westbound >45 F Eastbound 43.5 E and Willow Avenue Between Willow Avenue Westbound 44.2 E Eastbound 37.0 E and Cummings Skyway Between Cummings Skyway Westbound >45 F Eastbound >45 F and Carquinez Bridge

a Peak direction of traffic flow during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. b Density for mainline analyses is defined as passenger car equivalents per mile per lane.

SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2006.

As indicated in the table, the freeway segments between State Route 4 and the Carquinez Bridge currently operate at LOS E or F in the peak-directional flow during both peak hours. It is noted that the CCTA designates the LOS standard for these segments to be LOS E (westbound) and LOS F (eastbound). The service level calculation sheets for all study freeway segments are provided in a separate Traffic Analysis and Data Report (ESA, 2006).

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.13-8 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities In the vicinity of the project, there is a bikeway through Hercules, and a bikeway is proposed for San Pablo Avenue between Hercules and Crockett. Sidewalks are provided along Willow Avenue – Parker Avenue – San Pablo Avenue in Rodeo, but land uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site preclude the need for sidewalks.

Public Transportation Local public bus transit in Rodeo is provided by Western Contra Costa Transit Authority (WestCAT) Route 11, which provides service via San Pablo Avenue to the Hercules Transit Center, Rodeo and Crockett. Route 11 operates on weekdays (6:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on 30-minute headways) and Saturdays (9:30 a.m. to 8:20 p.m. on 40-minute headways).

4.13.2.2 Regulatory Setting The Transportation and Circulation Element provides the framework to assure that the County will have an adequate transportation system. The goals and policies related to traffic and transportation are summarized as follows:

• Provide a safe, efficient and balanced transportation system.

• Reduce cumulative regional traffic impacts of development.

• Promote Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies to encourage efficient use of existing transportation facilities during peak periods of travel.

4.13.3 Significance Criteria, Methodology and Discussion of No Impacts

4.13.3.1 Significance Criteria California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G, states that a project would have a significant impact to transportation conditions if it would: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.13-9 July 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

In addition to the above-listed criteria from Appendix G, the following criteria are derived from County supplemental requirements and common engineering practice to apply to the project- specific analysis presented herein:

• Cause the level of service at a signalized intersection to worsen from LOS D or better to LOS E or F, or cause conditions at an unsignalized intersection to warrant installation of a traffic signal.

• Cause the level of service on a regional roadway to worsen from LOS D or better to LOS E or F, or cause the peak-hour peak-direction traffic volume to increase by more than three percent or more on a regional roadway that would operate at LOS F without the Proposed Project.

• Result in projected parking demand that would exceed the proposed parking supply on a regular and frequent basis.

• Result in potential conflicts for pedestrians or bicyclists.

• Increase transit demand above the levels provided by local transit operators or agencies.

• Cause substantial damage or wear of public roadways by increased movement of heavy vehicles.

4.13.3.2 Discussion of No Impacts Review and comparison of the setting circumstances and Proposed Project characteristics, with the significance criteria stated above, clearly show that no impacts would be associated with some of the above criteria. The following provides a discussion of each topic area for which there would be no transportation and traffic impact: c. Would the Proposed Project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

The Proposed Project would not involve aircraft, would not be near an airport, nor would the Project structures intrude into aircraft flight paths or air traffic spaces. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on air traffic patterns that results in substantial safety risks. d. Would the Proposed Project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.13-10 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic

The Proposed Project would not involve redesign or reconfiguration of roadways. Measures that are needed to mitigate traffic volume effects would eliminate any increase in hazard due to added trucks and workers automobiles accessing the Refinery. There would be no incompatible uses nor would there be roadway design changes. Therefore the Proposed Project would have no impact on road hazards. e. Would the Proposed Project result in inadequate emergency access?

The Proposed Project would not involve obstruction, redesign or reconfiguration of roadways. Nor would the Proposed Project affect emergency services providers. Therefore the Proposed Project would have no impact on emergency access. f. Would the Proposed Project result in inadequate parking capacity or result in projected parking demand that would exceed the proposed parking supply on a regular and frequent basis?

The Proposed Project would include adequate parking on or adjacent to Refinery property. The Proposed Project would not diminish the local parking supply. There would be no parking effect offsite. Therefore the Proposed Project would have no impact on parking. g. Would the Proposed Project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Would it result in potential conflicts for pedestrians or bicyclists or would it increase transit demand above the levels provided by local transit operators or agencies?

The Proposed Project would not involve obstruction, redesign or reconfiguration of roadways, nor would it affect bus routes or bicycle racks. Given that there would be little or no effect on population, there would be no increase in transit demand. The Proposed Project would have no impact on adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.

The remaining significance criteria are grouped and discussed generally under four impact statements, Impact 4.13-1 through 4.13-4, in Sections 4.13.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and Impact 4.13-5 in Section 4.13.5, Cumulative Impacts.

4.13.3.3 Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology Proposed Project impacts to traffic are evaluated under the assumption that the peak construction period for the new Hydrogen Plant would overlap with the peak construction period for other components. The impact of the Proposed Project was estimated by evaluating how intersection and roadway levels of service would change with the addition of construction-related traffic.

Caltrans’ I-80 High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Gap Closure Project, which will complete the HOV lane on I-80 in the Proposed Project vicinity, has received the necessary funding from the state, and is in the State Transportation Improvement Program (Greitzer, 2006). However, this

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.13-11 July 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic improvement would not be in-place during the period of Proposed Project construction, and therefore is not assumed as part of this analysis. In addition, the Parker Avenue Reconstruction project, which started August 7, 2006, and is expected to be completed by the end of 2007, temporarily reduces the number of lanes on Parker Avenue and San Pablo Avenue (between 7th Street and California Street) from 4 lanes to 2 lanes (one lane in each direction); the potential for reduced roadway capacity on these roads was taken into account for evaluation of impacts during the period of Proposed Project construction. There are no other roadway or intersection improvements within the study area that would change the existing lane configurations during Proposed Project construction. Therefore, the existing intersection geometrics were utilized in the level of service analysis of Proposed Project construction conditions.

For the cumulative scenario, the Proposed Project and the Refinery would be in their operational phase (i.e., construction of the Proposed Project components would have already been completed). The cumulative baseline traffic volumes are based on the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Countywide Travel Demand Model, and include volume forecasts for all cumulative developments planned in the County and surrounding cities (based on maximum General Plan land uses and applicable development applications).

Trip Generation Implementation of the Proposed Project is scheduled to begin in the first quarter of 2007. Depending on whether the peak construction period for the Hydrogen Plant and other components overlap, the Proposed Project’s construction workforce is expected to reach between 484 and 834 workers at its peak. So as to not underreport potential impacts, this analysis assumed that the peak construction periods would overlap. Table 4.13-4 provides the trip generation estimates of construction-related traffic.

TABLE 4.13-4 PEAK PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE TRIP GENERATIONa

A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Daily Category Units Trips In Out Total In Out Total

Construction Workers 834 workers 1,516 76 0 76 0 758 758 Construction Trucks 40 trucks 80 4 0 4 0 4 4

Total Traffic 1,596 80 0 80 0 762 762

a See text below, and trip generation worksheet in the separate Traffic Analysis and Data Report (ESA, 2006), for the basis for the bases for this estimate.

SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2006.

Construction worker vehicle trip generation was based on the peak number of workers, the number of workers on each work shift, and their expected arrival and departure times. An average vehicle occupancy (AVO) of 1.10 was assumed, representing the expected amount of ridesharing by construction workers. According to ConocoPhillips estimates, construction would occur

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.13-12 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic weekdays during an 8- to 10-hour shift (starting at 7:00 a.m., and ending as early as 3:30 p.m. and as late as 5:30 p.m.). Trips would be generated during the peak traffic hours on surrounding roads (i.e., the peak hour within the 7:00 to 9:00 a.m., and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. peak periods), although with a shift start time of 7:00 a.m., worker commute trips to the site would primarily end prior to the start of the peak traffic hour; the analysis conservatively assumes that about ten percent of the workers would be late for work (i.e., arriving after 7:00 a.m.). All workers are assumed to leave the site during the p.m. peak period. As shown in Table 4.13-4, construction workers would generate about 76 inbound vehicle trips and 758 outbound vehicle trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively.

Construction truck trip generation during the peak month of construction activity has been estimated at 20 trucks per day for the Hydrogen Plant and 20 trucks per day for other components, for a total of 40 trucks per day (i.e., 80 total truck trips), which would travel inbound and outbound to/from the site throughout the day. The analysis assumes that about ten percent of the truck trips would occur during the peak traffic hours.

In summary, the total daily trips generated during the peak month of construction activity would be about 1,600 vehicles. The total peak-hour trips generated would be about 80 trips during the a.m. peak hour, and about 762 trips during the p.m. peak hour.

As stated in Section 4.15.1, Introduction, traffic from operations following Proposed Project construction would be insignificant compared to the cumulative traffic volumes at the study area intersections and freeway mainline.

Trip Distribution Construction traffic distribution has been estimated based on an assumption that the construction work force would be drawn from all areas of the region, and that it is reasonable to expect a similar distribution north, south, east and west. Worker trips to/from I-80 North would use the Cummings Skyway interchange. Worker trips to/from I-80 South (which include combined trips to/from areas south, east and west of the Proposed Project area) would use both the Willow Avenue and Cummings Skyway interchanges. Given the shorter distance (and travel time) between I-80 and the construction staging area via Cummings Skyway / San Pablo Avenue than via Willow Avenue / Parker Avenue / San Pablo Avenue, and the potential for delays caused by reconstruction of Parker Avenue and San Pablo Avenue (between 7th Street and California Street), it is assumed that more, but not all, workers traveling to/from I-80 South would use Cummings Skyway than Willow Avenue. Construction truck trips are expected to follow a similar directional distribution, but all are assumed to use the Cummings Skyway interchange. The total trip distribution is as follows:

• 25 percent to/from I-80 North (Cummings Skyway interchange) • 19 percent to/from I-80 South (Willow Avenue interchange) • 56 percent to/from I-80 South (Cummings Skyway interchange)

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.13-13 July 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic

Trip Assignment The a.m. and p.m. peak-hour peak construction-generated trip generation estimates were applied to the distribution paths described above, and the construction period trip assignment was determined. The assigned Proposed Project trips were added to existing (2006) a.m. and p.m. peak-hour volumes to derive the with-Proposed Project traffic volumes and to determine Proposed Project-specific impacts to study area intersections and freeway segments. Figures 4.13- 3 and 4.13-4 illustrate Proposed Project trips, and the 2006 with-Proposed Project traffic volumes, respectively, at the study area intersections and on the I-80 freeway segments.

4.13.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

2006 With-Project Intersection Levels of Service

Impact 4.13-1: Proposed Project-generated increases in traffic volumes at intersections in the Proposed Project area would result in a less-than-significant impact to peak-hour traffic operations.

An analysis of the 2006 with-Proposed Project peak-hour volumes was conducted using the HCM2000 methodology for the study area intersections. Table 4.13-5 presents the results of those computations. As indicated in the table, all study area intersections would continue to operate with acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) in both peak hours during peak Proposed Project construction activity. TABLE 4.13-5 2006 WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Intersection Control Delay LOSa Delay LOSa

1. I-80 EB ramps / Cummings Skyway Signal 8.2 sec. A 5.6 sec. A 2. I-80 WB ramps / Cummings Skyway 2-way stop 33.4 sec. D 19.6 sec. C 3. San Pablo Avenue / Cummings Skyway Signal 15.5 sec. B 10.4 sec. B 4. Willow Avenue / San Pablo Avenue Signal 17.9 sec. B 20.7 sec. C 5. Willow Avenue / I-80 WB ramps 1-way stop 15.1 sec. C 19.1 sec. C 6. Willow Avenue / I-80 EB ramps Signal 21.9 sec. C 22.8 sec. C

a Level of service at signalized intersections represent overall intersection conditions; level of service at unsignalized intersections represent the turning movement with the worst condition.

SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2006.

Mitigation: None required.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.13-14 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report CARQUINEZ BRIDGE N

20 CROCKETT (190)

O L 2 B 1 A P S CUMMING N A S

(430)

RODEO 46

4 5

6 WILLOW AVE SAN(572) PABLO AVE 60

HERCULES

1 2 3 I-80 20

46 Skyway Skyway San Pablo (190) (620) (190) (430) 46 66 I-80 Skyway

4 5 6 Willow (142) (142)

San Pablo I-80 14 I-80

LEGEND 14 14 XX(XX) = AM(PM) Willow Willow

ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project SOURCE: ESA Figure 4.13-3 2006 Project (AM/PM) Peak Hour Freeway and Intersection Volumes CARQUINEZ BRIDGE N

6675 CROCKETT (6580)

O L 2 B 1 A P S CUMMING N A S

6330

RODEO (5790)

4 5

6 WILLOW AVE SAN6660 PABLO AVE (6290)

HERCULES

1 2 3 39(19) 2(4) 310(91) 55(46) 80(582) 72(29) 5(5) 18(27) 4(15) Skyway San Pablo 37(263) Skyway 10(233) 40(156) 6(441) 337(121) 40(690) 1(6) 6(7) 14(5) 58(13) 108(41) I-80 I-80 Skyway

4 5 6 176(184) 303(617) 222(354) 182(327) 54(50) 132(257) 71(99) 140(372) 98(104) 43(78) 85(105) 48(227) San Pablo I-80 I-80 125(590) 89(86) 123(196) 53(46) LEGEND 14(29)

XX(XX) = AM(PM) 66(85) 28(34) 145(125) 240(514) 680(720) 467(298) Willow Willow Willow

ConocoPhillips Clean Fuels Expansion Project SOURCE: ESA Figure 4.13-4 2006 with Project (AM/PM) Peak Hour Freeway and Intersection Volumes 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic

Although not required, the following measures would provide for improvements to the study area intersections, and would ensure less-than-significant impacts on the affected community:

• Stagger the departure time of construction personnel over the planned 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. time, which would reduce the number of workers departing the work site at the same time, and thus reduce the load on the street and highway system in the Refinery vicinity.

• Periodic community information meetings would be held by ConocoPhillips during the course of the Proposed Project construction to present information about the Proposed Project status and to address questions and concerns raised by local residents. Local input would assist ConocoPhillips in identifying problematic traffic areas and this in turn would facilitate implementation of appropriate actions to help alleviate the problems.

Impact 4.13-2: Proposed Project construction could overlap with other construction projects, which could have the effect of increasing temporary and intermittent delays experienced by motorists on area roadways. This impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level by implementation of Mitigation 4.13-2.

Reconstruction of Parker Avenue (between 7th Street and California Street) in Rodeo began August 7, 2006, with completion projected for late 2007 (Contra Costa Public Works, 2006). That schedule would overlap with the planned Proposed Project construction period, which could increase the temporary and intermittent delays on Parker Road. Other projects, unknown at this time, could occur in the vicinity of Parker Avenue, and those other projects could increase traffic on roads used by workers and trucks associated with Proposed Project construction.

Mitigation Measure 4.13-2: To minimize traffic impacts to area roadways during Proposed Project construction, all construction-related traffic shall access the site from the north, using Cummings Skyway to San Pablo Avenue. Construction-related traffic shall not deviate from this route, except in the event that the route is rendered impassable due to accidents or other unanticipated road closures. In the event that this route becomes impassable for an extended period of time, ConocoPhillips shall consult with Contra Costa County to determine an acceptable alternate route.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.

2006 With-Project Freeway Levels of Service

Impact 4.13-3: Proposed Project-generated increases in traffic volumes on the I-80 freeway in the Proposed Project area would result in a less-than-significant impact to peak-hour peak-direction operations.

Similar to the 2006 with-Proposed Project intersection analysis, 2006 with-Proposed Project a.m. and p.m. peak-hour traffic volumes on the I-80 freeway were analyzed for peak-direction levels

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.13-17 July 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic of service on freeway mainline segments to be used by Proposed Project construction traffic. As indicated in Table 4.13-6, traffic level-of-service conditions would continue to operate at LOS E or F in the peak-directional flow during both peak hours.

TABLE 4.13-6 2006 WITH-PROJECT FREEWAY MAINLINE LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

I-80 Freeway Segment Directiona Densityb LOS Directiona Densityb LOS

a Peak direction of traffic flow during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. b Density for mainline analyses is defined as passenger car equivalents per mile per lane.

SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2006.

It is noted that the only freeway segment on which peak-hour Proposed Project traffic would travel in the peak direction would be between Cummings Skyway and the Carquinez Bridge. That segment would continue to operate at LOS F with the addition of Proposed Project traffic, but Proposed Project-generated traffic would increase the peak-hour peak-direction traffic volume by less than the three-percent threshold of significance, thus the impact would be less than significant. Furthermore, that effect would be temporary. Proposed Project traffic would not travel on the westbound segment from Willow Avenue to State Route 4, operating at LOS F, in the a.m. peak hour.

Mitigation: None required.

Impact 4.13-4: Proposed Project-generated increases in heavy truck traffic on area roadways could result in substantial damage or wear of public roadways. This impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level by implementation of Mitigation 4.13-4.

The use of large trucks to transport equipment and material to and from the Proposed Project work sites could affect road conditions on the designated construction route by increasing the rate of road wear. The degree to which this impact would occur depends on the roadway design (pavement type and thickness) and the existing condition of the road. Freeways, such as I-80, are designed to handle a mix of vehicle types, including heavy trucks. The Proposed Project’s impacts are expected to be negligible on those roads. Collector streets, such as San Pablo Avenue and Cummings Skyway, are likewise designed to handle a mix of vehicle types. However,

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.13-18 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic because of the potential for excessive road wear due to Proposed Project construction trucks, measures are identified to mitigate this potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure 4.13-4: Prior to commencement of Proposed Project construction activities, which include any construction-related deliveries to the site, ConocoPhillips shall document to the satisfaction of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, the road conditions of the construction route that would be used by Proposed Project construction-related vehicles. ConocoPhillips shall also document the construction route road conditions after Proposed Project construction has been completed. ConocoPhillips shall repair roads damaged by construction to County standards and to a structural condition equal to that which existed prior to construction activity. As a security to ensure that damaged roads are adequately repaired, ConocoPhillips shall make an initial $250,000 deposit to an account to be used for roadway rehabilitation or reconstruction. If the County must ultimately undertake the road repairs, and repair costs exceed $250,000, then ConocoPhillips shall pay the additional amount necessary to fully repair the roads to pre- construction conditions. Unused portions of the deposit would be returned to ConocoPhillips.

4.13.5 Cumulative Impacts The cumulative scenario, which is defined by the cumulative horizon year of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s (CCTA) countywide travel demand model, was assessed to determine long-term traffic impacts associated with buildout conditions in the area. The locations and sizes of the major development projects envisioned in the County and cities’ General Plans have been programmed into the Countywide Travel Demand Model developed by CCTA. The CCTA countywide model reflects regional growth based on projections that were consistent with forecasts by the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

Impact 4.13-5: Under cumulative conditions, operation of the Refinery would generate up to 22 new a.m. peak-hour trips, and up to 22 new p.m. peak-hour trips. In addition, about 18 new daily truck trips would be generated because of increased import and export of materials to and from the Refinery. This amount is insignificant when compared to the cumulative traffic volumes at the study area intersections and freeway mainline. This is a less-than-significant impact.

Cumulative analyses presented in other documents were reviewed to characterize long-range traffic operating conditions on roadways in the study area. Those documents include the Interstate 80 High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Gap Closure Project Draft EA/IS (Caltrans, 2002), and the 2005 Update to the Contra Costa Congestion Management Program (CCTA, 2005).

Traffic operating conditions on County roadways would be adversely affected by future growth in population and employment in the I-80 corridor. Portions of I-80 and San Pablo Avenue, as well as

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.13-19 July 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic area intersections (e.g., San Pablo Avenue / Willow Avenue and Willow Avenue / I-80 Westbound Ramps) are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service.

As stated in Section 4.15.1, Introduction, operation of the facilities following Proposed Project construction would add 27 new permanent employees (though not all 27 people would work on the same days), generating about 44 new one-way commute trips. In addition, there would be about nine new truck deliveries or pickups per day (i.e., about 18 new one-way truck trips), mainly to transport sulfur from the Refinery and to deliver materials and supplies, plus miscellaneous other trips on a monthly or yearly basis. These truck trips would be spread throughout the day and are expected to occur primarily during off-peak traffic hours. This number of additional vehicles on area roadways during peak traffic hours would not be noticed by the average driver, and its effect on traffic operating conditions would be insignificant.

Mitigation: None required.

References – Transportation California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2004 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways, www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/index.htm, 2005.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Interstate 80 High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Gap Closure Project Draft EA/IS, www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/envdocs.htm, 2002.

Contra Costa County Public Works, Parker Avenue Improvements newsletter, March 2006.

Contra Costa County, Circulation Element of the General Plan (2005–2020), January 2005.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), 2005 Update to the Contra Costa Congestion Management Program, adopted November 2005.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), Year 2025 Model Outputs (accessed from the CCTA website [http://www.ccta.net/GM/travel_demand.htm]), June 2006).

Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Traffic Analysis and Data Report, June 2006.

Greitzer, John, Planner, Contra Costa County Community Development Department, personal communication, March 6, 2006.

Transportation Research Board (TRB), Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.13-20 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.14 Utilities and Service Systems

The Proposed Project would have no impacts with the exception of the following less-than-significant impacts to utility and service systems:

• Operation of the Proposed Project would increase the use of municipal water from EBMUD.

• Construction of the Proposed Project would result in a short-term increase in solid waste disposal and recycling.

• Operation of the Proposed Project would result in an insubstantial increase in non-hazardous solid waste and recycled waste produced at the Refinery. No mitigation measures would be required.

4.14.1 Introduction This section addresses utility and service systems, such as water supply, solid and non-hazardous waste generation and disposal. The Proposed Project impacts related to surface water, wastewater, and stormwater runoff are discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. Impacts related to electricity and natural gas supply and demand are discussed in Section 4.5, Energy.

4.14.2 Setting

4.14.2.1 Regional Setting

Municipal Water Supply The Refinery receives all of its fresh water supply from the publicly-owned East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD), whose service area extends from Crockett in the north to San Lorenzo in the south, including the cities of Berkeley and Oakland, and from San Francisco Bay east to Walnut Creek (EBMUD, 2005a).

Mokelumne River is a major water source for the District, and the source of water for the River originates in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of eastern California. The watershed of this river collects snowmelt from western slope of the Sierra Nevada in Alpine, Amador, and Calaveras counties. Water from the river is collected at the Pardee Dam and Reservoir, located 38 miles northeast of Stockton near the town of Jackson. EBMUD has water rights and contracts for up to 325 million gallons per day from the Mokelumne River, but the precise amount of this entitlement available in any given year is dependent on a range of variables.

In addition, EBMUD has been recycling water at its main wastewater treatment facility since the early 1970s. Recycled water is suitable for land uses that do not require potable water sources, such as golf courses, some agricultural areas, and industrial uses. Incentives used by EBMUD to

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.14-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Utilities and Service Systems encourage customers to utilize recycled water include rate discounts on recycled water and low- interest loans used to retrofit buildings so that they can accommodate recycled water.

There are six water treatment plants in the EBMUD water supply and distribution system. Combined, the six plants have a treatment capacity of over 375 million gallons per day (MGD). The Orinda Water Treatment Plant, which supplies potable water to Richmond and the Proposed Project site, has a treatment capacity of 200 MGD and is operating at approximately 70 percent capacity (EBMUD, 2005a). EBMUD’s system storage generally allows it to continue serving its customers during dry-year events. EBMUD imposes rationing based on the projected storage at the end of September each year, and by imposing rationing in the first dry year of potential drought, EBMUD attempts to minimize rationing in subsequent years if a drought persists while continuing to meet its current and subsequent-year fishery flow release requirements and obligations to downstream agencies. The District’s Water Service Regulations, which all customers must comply with, provide for special restrictions on water use during a water shortage emergency.

Municipal Water Demand The demand for water in the EBMUD’s service area is projected to increase to 250 MGD by the year 2020. This projection assumes that the existing EBMUD conservation programs would reduce annual demand by 6 MGD; wastewater reclamation would decrease demand for freshwater by 7 MGD; and the ongoing replacement of water using devices with higher efficiency units would reduce demand by 14 MGD. The Updated Water Supply Management Program that has been adopted by the District to meet year 2020 district-wide demand sets minimum performance goals for water supply in the service area including reliability, flexibility, and the minimization of water rationing. Key components of the Program are water conservation and reclamation.

Wastewater and Sewer Treatment The Refinery lies within Rodeo Sanitation District's service area, which operates a system that collects, conveys, and treats wastewater for the residents and businesses in Rodeo. The District’s treatment plant and its recycled water facility are located on 800 San Pablo Avenue. However, the Refinery does not discharge to the West County Wastewater District. Wastewater (including sewer) is covered in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Non-Hazardous and Recyclable Solid Waste The Refinery is within the service area of Richmond Sanitary Service, which hauls municipal waste from the Refinery to a Class III landfill. The bulk of the other non-hazardous waste and recyclable waste generated by the Refinery is taken to the Keller Canyon Landfill in Pittsburg, California, by a contracted hauler. According to information obtained from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), the Keller Canyon Landfill is a Class II landfill with a permitted throughput of 3,500 tons per day. The remaining capacity for the landfill is approximately 68,000,000 cubic yards, as of June 2001, and the landfill closure date is December

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.14-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Utilities and Service Systems

2030. The landfill accepts agricultural, construction/demolition, industrial, mixed municipal, and sludge waste (CIWMB, 2006).

4.14.2.2 Project Setting The principal activity at the Refinery is the manufacturing of petroleum products and fuels, including butane, various grades of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and fuel oils. Sulfur and petroleum coke are produced through the process of converting crude oil. The fuels produced are used for numerous transportation applications, including automobiles, heavy trucks, ships, and aircraft. The petroleum coke produced is sent offsite either as fuel or for further processing. The crudes are delivered to the Refinery by pipeline and tanker. Refinery activities require the use of municipal water, and result in the generation of solid waste.

Refinery Water Supply The Refinery receives its freshwater supply [4.32 million gallons per day (MGD)] from EBMUD. Additional cooling water (saltwater) is obtained from the San Francisco Bay, with an average of 31 million gallons withdrawn and returned to the Bay daily. The Refinery’s main use of water is to supply refining processes with steam and cooling water. Water may also be used for emergency fire suppression, if necessary (ConocoPhillips, 2005).

Refinery Water Demand and Reuse The most common industrial water reuse application is for cooling, but reclaimed water can also be used for boiler feedwater, as process water, and for washdown. Other uses of reclaimed water are dust control and soil compaction during construction, as well as landscape irrigation.

Pursuant to Sections 10910-10915 of the California Water Code, a Water Supply Assessment (SB610) would not be required for the Proposed Project because “… the project does not exceed the criterion that triggers a WSA with respect to industrial development” (EBMUD, 2005b). Water for the Proposed Project would be provided from EBMUD’s existing water supply.

Refinery Non-Hazardous and Recyclable Waste Richmond Sanitary Service hauls approximately one-quarter of a ton per month of garbage, industrial trash and domestic wood wastes to a Class III landfill. Approximately 344 tons of other non-hazardous waste generated by the Refinery is taken to the Keller Canyon Landfill in Pittsburg, California, by a contracted hauler each month. The Refinery also generates waste items, such as spent batteries and lights, that contain certain hazardous materials and therefore require special disposal, separate from municipal trash; these items are referred to as “Universal Waste”. The Refinery generates less than 20 pounds per month of Universal Waste, which it disposes of at a household hazardous waste collection facility or other authorized universal waste handler. The Refinery has distributed paper-recycling containers and is encouraging a waste paper recycling program (ConocoPhillips, 2005).

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.14-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Utilities and Service Systems

The Refinery generates approximately 34 tons of non-hazardous waste that is sent to Keller Canyon during each maintenance turnaround. Turnarounds on various cycles are dependant upon the equipment and operating conditions of the individual processing units. The determining factors for a turnaround include regulatory inspection requirements, catalyst life, equipment fouling, and anticipated equipment life.

Wastewater and Sewer Treatment The Refinery lies within Rodeo Sanitation District's service area, which operates a system that collects, conveys, and treats wastewater for the residents and businesses in Rodeo. The District’s treatment plant and its recycled water facility are located at 800 San Pablo Avenue. However, the Refinery does not discharge (including sewer) wastewater to this facility. Additional information regarding wastewater treatment of Refinery waste and storm water is presented in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

4.14.2.3 Regulatory Setting

Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 The purpose and legislative intent of Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) and Senate Bill 221 (SB 221) was to preclude projects from being approved without specific evaluations being performed and documented by the local water provider proving that water is available to serve the project. SB 610 primarily affects the Water Code and SB 221 principally applies to the Subdivision Map Act. The laws took effect on January 1, 2002. SB 610 requires the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for large-scale development projects.1 The WSA evaluates the water supply available for new development based on anticipated demand. For the broad range of projects which are subject to this law, the statutory WSA must be requested by the lead agency from the local water provider at the time the lead agency determines that an EIR is required for the project under CEQA. The water agency must then provide the assessment within 90 days (but may request a time extension under certain circumstances). The WSA must include specific information including an identification of existing water supply entitlements and contracts. The governing board of the water agency must approve the assessment at a public hearing.

SB 221 requires the local water provider to provide “written verification” of “sufficient water supplies” to serve the project. Sufficiency under SB 221 differs from SB 610 in that sufficiency is determined by considering the availability of water over the past 20 years; the applicability of any urban water shortage contingency analysis prepared per Water Code Section 10632; the reduction in water supply allocated to a specific use by an adopted ordinance; and the amount of water that

1 All projects that meet any of the following criteria require a WSA: [1] a proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; [2] a proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 ft2 of floor space; [3] a proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 ft2 of floor space; [4] a proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms; [5] a proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area; [6] a mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision; or [7] a project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.14-4 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Utilities and Service Systems can be reasonably relied upon from other water supply projects, such as conjunctive use, reclaimed water, water conservation, and water transfer. In most cases, the WSA prepared under SB 610 would meet the requirement for proof of water supply under SB 221.

State Bill 365 (SB 365; Chapter 980, Statutes of 1993) Existing provisions of the California Water Code declare that the use of potable water for certain non-potable uses “is a waste or an unreasonable use of water.” SB 365 amends and expands the Water Code to strengthen the provision that the use of potable water for the irrigation of residential landscaping, floor-trap priming, cooling towers, or air-conditioning devices, is wasteful and unsound if reclaimed water suitable for these purposes is available. SB 365 also gives the power to any public agency, including a State agency, city, county, district, or any other political subdivision of the state, to require the use of reclaimed water for these purposes if certain conditions are met. The conditions that must be met are:

• Reclaimed water meeting the requirements of existing law (Section 13550 of the Water Code) is available to the user; • The use of reclaimed water does not cause any loss or diminution of any existing water right; • Public health concerns regarding exposure to mist or spray must be addressed, if appropriate; • The water user must prepare an engineering report pursuant to Title 22 regulations governing the use of reclaimed water. The requirements of the law are applicable to all new industrial facilities and subdivisions for which the Department of Health Services has approved the use of reclaimed water, and for which a building permit is issued on or after March 15, 1994, or, if a building permit is not required, new structures for which construction begins on or after this date.

Assembly Bill 939 The Regional Integrated Waste Management Plan state law (Assembly Bill 939) enacted in 1989 established an integrated waste management planning process, including requirements for counties and cities to meet adopted waste diversion goals for source reduction, recycling, and composting programs. It required municipal and state agencies to divert the amount of waste going to landfills by 25 percent by the year 1995 and by 50 percent by the year 2000. In 2002, unincorporated portions of Contra Costa County diverted 49 percent, an amount that the California Integrated Waste Management Board approved as a good faith effort toward attaining a 50 percent diversion rate.

Contra Costa County General Plan The Contra Costa County General Plan contains goals and policies pertaining to water supply, solid waste, and sanitary sewer facilities within its Public Facilities/Services Element, Growth Management Element, and Conservation Element. The Public Facilities/Services Element establishes goals and policies and implementation measures that address the vital infrastructure

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.14-5 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Utilities and Service Systems and public services that must be provided. The Growth Management Element establishes performance standards related to the provision of essential public utilities/services. The Conservation Element presents goals and policies for resource protection including energy and water. These goals and policies are summarized as follows:

Water Use, Conservation and Demand:

• Require that water service systems meet regulatory standards for water delivery, water storage, and emergency water supplies. • Require demonstration that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided based on information furnished or made available to the County from consultations with the appropriate water agency. • Encourage reclamation of water as a supplement to existing water supplies. Wastewater:

• Require that wastewater treatment capacity can be provided and that treatment facilities operate in compliance with waste discharge requirements established by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Solid Waste:

• Consider solid waste disposal capacity in County land use planning and permitting. • Encourage solid waste resource recovery (including recycling, composting, and waste to energy) so as to extend the life of sanitary landfills, reduce environmental impact, and to make use of a valuable resource.

Contra Costa County Code

Construction and Demolition Debris Recovery Ordinance The intent of this ordinance is to reduce the quantity of construction and demolition debris disposed in landfills as required by state law. The Ordinance requires owners of all construction or demolition projects that are 5,000 square feet in size or greater to demonstrate that at least 50 percent of the construction and demolition debris generated on the jobsite are reused, recycled, or otherwise diverted.

Contra Costa Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan As required by the California Integrated Waste Management Act, Contra Costa County adopted a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan and Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). The Integrated Waste Management Act establishes waste management goals, objectives, and policies related to solid waste disposal; facilities siting; household hazardous waste collection and disposal; and implementing programs to achieve plan goals. The SRRE establishes policies and goals related to source reduction, recycling, composting, special waste, and public information and education, and programs designed to achieve SRRE goals.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.14-6 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Utilities and Service Systems

4.14.3 Significance Criteria and Discussion of No Utilities and Service Systems Impact

Significance Criteria California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G, states that a project would have a significant public utilities or service system impact if it would: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. d) Not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed. e) Not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. g) Not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Discussion of No Impact to Utilities and Service Systems Review and comparison of the setting circumstances and Proposed Project characteristics with each of the seven significance criteria stated above, clearly show that no impacts would result with respect to the following five issues. The following discusses the reasoning supporting this conclusion: a. Would the Proposed Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board?

This criterion is directed to project effects on public utilities. Although the Refinery lies within Rodeo Sanitation District's service area, the Refinery collects, treats and discharges all wastewater and storm water using its own private facilities. The Refinery does not discharge to the public wastewater treatment facilities. The capacity of the Rodeo Sanitation District's wastewater treatment facility would be unaffected, as would its ability to meet the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. There would be no impact.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.14-7 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Utilities and Service Systems

For thorough discussions about the Refinery’s private combined wastewater (including storm water runoff, process water, sanitary sewage, and groundwater remediation) collection, treatment and disposal system and the ability of that system to meet the treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, see Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. b. Would the Proposed Project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

The Proposed Project would be constructed and its operations conducted entirely within those areas of the Refinery that are already served by the existing water and wastewater collection and treatment systems. The Proposed Project would not include new water and wastewater facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. There would be no impact. c. Would the Proposed Project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

The Proposed Project would be constructed and its operations conducted entirely within those areas of the Refinery that are already served by the existing storm water collection and treatment system. The Proposed Project would not involve the construction of new facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. There would be no impact. e. Would the Proposed Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

Although the Refinery lies within Rodeo Sanitation District's service area, the Refinery collects, treats and discharges all wastewater and storm water using its own facilities. The Refinery does not discharge to the Rodeo Sanitation District’s public facilities. The Proposed Project would be constructed and its operations conducted entirely within those areas of the Refinery that are already served by the Refinery’s own existing wastewater collection and treatment system. The existing Refinery treatment system is adequate and would require no modification to serve the Proposed Project. The capacity of the Rodeo Sanitation District's facility would be unaffected. There would be no impact. g. Would the Proposed Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

The applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste are described in Section 4.14.2, above, as are the actions taken by the Refinery to comply with those statutes and regulations. The Refinery is currently complying with federal, state, and

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.14-8 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Utilities and Service Systems

County requirements related to management of solid waste. In addition, the Refinery has an ongoing recycling program that would be employed during the construction and operation of the proposed facilities. There are no aspects of, or actions proposed under the Proposed Project that would not comply with these existing solid waste statutes and regulations. As a result there is no reason to expect that the Refinery would not continue to comply. There would be no impact.

The remaining criteria are discussed in Section 4.14.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, under Impacts 4.14-1 and 4.14-2, and Section 4.14.5, Cumulative Impacts, Impact 4.14-3, below.

4.14.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact 4.14-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would increase use of raw water from EBMUD, which has indicated that there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. This would be a less-than- significant impact.

The Proposed Project would increase the Refinery’s consumption of water. The Refinery is evaluating whether in the future, it would be feasible to use reclaimed water from the nearby Rodeo and Pinole wastewater treatment plants. At the new Hydrogen Plant, the Proposed Project would require boiler feed water for the steam system, raw water for cooling tower make-up plus the wash-down station and potable water. The Proposed Project would require approximately 537 additional gallons per minute (GPM), which is 0.77 MGD or approximately 858 acre-feet per year (ConocoPhillips, 2005).

In order to use this additional water, new tie-in piping would be required at the Hydrogen Plant. At full capacity production, the Hydrogen Plant would consume up to an additional 230 GPM of water. This would be a total of 767 GPM, which is 1.1 MGD or approximately 1,225 acre-feet per year. The additional water required for the Proposed Project is available from EBMUD’s existing entitlements. This impact would be less than significant.

The additional water supply demand during Proposed Project construction and operation would be only a small, temporary increment as compared to existing water usage. Thus, the contribution to the water supply demand would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.

Impact 4.14-2: The solid waste generated from Proposed Project construction and operation would be directed to landfills. Almost all of the additional solid waste would be directed to Keller Canyon Landfill, which has sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Proposed Project’s solid waste disposal needs. The impact would be less than significant.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.14-9 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Utilities and Service Systems

Grading and demolition would be required as a part of construction of the Proposed Project. The new hydrocracking unit would be constructed on a previously developed plot space adjacent to the existing hydrocracker. The new Sulfur Recovery Unit (SRU) is planned within an existing fire training area, south and adjacent to the existing SRUs. The new Hydrogen Plant would be constructed on existing plot space of former Unit 210.

Excess soil generated in grading for these units would be reused or stored on-site. Other materials, such as asphalt and concrete from demolition activities, would be transported off-site for recycling or disposal at appropriately permitted disposal sites. Hydrocarbon-containing soils would be handled in consistence with the Refinery’s approved Soils Management Plan (SFBRWQCB, 2005).

Additional solid waste would be generated during construction and operation of the Proposed Project facilities. Construction phase wastes would include materials such as asphaltic concrete, metals, and other materials from demolition and site preparation activities, as well as typical construction debris such as packaging materials, etc.

Solid waste from Proposed Project construction is expected to produce 2.8 pounds per person per day with an estimated 38 tons of waste produced during the peak 4- to 6-month construction period (ConocoPhillips, 2005). Solid wastes would include:

• Debris from existing structures that would be removed for modifications; and

• Debris from yet undefined demolition activities associated with proposed modifications to other Refinery units (e.g. sour water stripper, amine regenerator, reformer, tank farm, product blending unit).

Additional solid waste would be recycled or transported to an approved solid waste landfill. Debris that could not be recycled would be sent to a sanitary landfill in compliance with the Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan. The Refinery’s ongoing recycling programs also would reduce the quantities of Proposed Project solid wastes that require landfill disposal.

As noted in Section 4.14.2, the Keller Canyon Landfill is a Class II landfill with a permitted throughput of 3,500 tons per day. The remaining capacity for the landfill is approximately 68,000,000 cubic yards, as of June 2001, and the landfill closure date is December 2030. Currently, the Refinery disposes of approximately 344 tons per month of other non-hazardous waste at the Keller Canyon Landfill. The estimated 38 tons of solid waste produced during peak construction would represent the largest component of the solid waste produced by the Proposed Project. This one-time contribution would be well within the capacity of the landfill and would be a less-than-significant impact.

During operation, solid wastes would be generated from routine maintenance, office activities, etc. The additional waste quantities generated during Proposed Project operations would be an insubstantial increase in comparison to the existing solid waste generation from normal operations at the Refinery. Currently, normal operations produce approximately one-quarter tons

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.14-10 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Utilities and Service Systems per month of garbage, industrial trash and domestic wood wastes that are hauled to a Class III landfill by Richmond Sanitary Service. The additional waste quantities generated by operation of the Proposed Project would be a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation: None required.

4.14.5 Cumulative Utilities and Service Systems Impacts

Impact 4.14-3: The Proposed Project together with proposed and planned future development at the Refinery and in the area in general, would result in increased water use and increased generation of solid waste. Although other industrial, commercial and residential development in the vicinity and in the County could result in similar increases in water use and solid waste generation, as well as impacts to the full range of Utilities and Service Systems categories, the contribution of the Proposed Project would not be cumulatively considerable. This impact would be less than significant.

The construction and operation of the Proposed Project, and of other Refinery projects described in Section 5.2.3 would have no impact on most Utilities and Service Systems categories and less- than-significant cumulative adverse impacts on water supply and solid waste disposal systems. However, non-Refinery cumulative development could adversely affect the provision of certain utilities and services if these projects substantially increase the demand on utility facilities or services. To the extent that these future developments provide the necessary tax base or other compensation to support the provision of necessary additional public services and facilities, the potential cumulative impacts would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels.

Mitigation: None required.

References – Utilities and Service Systems California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), Summary Results for Keller Canyon Landfill, www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS/Search.asp, 2006.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Order no. R2- 2005-0026 Updated Waste Discharge Requirements and Rescission of Order no. 97-027 for: For ConocoPhillips Company San Francisco Refinery 1380 San Pablo Ave., Rodeo, CA Contra Costa County, June 15, 2005.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery, Rodeo Clean Fuels Expansion Project - Energy and Utilities Supplement, Document No. 0030030-01-07, November 2005, Revised May 2006.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.14-11 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Utilities and Service Systems

Contra Costa County Community Development Department, Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), January 2005.

(EBMUD 2005a) East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), Water Resources Projects Division, Urban Water Management Plan 2005., www.ebmud.com/water_&_environment/ water_supply/urban_water_management_plan/2005_uwmp/, 2005.

(EBMUD 2005b) Letter from William R. Kirkpatrick, Manager of Water Distribution Planning, East Bay Municipal Utility District, September 14, 2005.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.14-12 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.15 Agricultural Resources

The Proposed Project would be constructed and operated entirely within the developed area of the ConocoPhillips Refinery. There are no agricultural land uses on or in the vicinity of the Proposed Project site. The Proposed Project would have no impact to agricultural resources. Thus, no mitigation measures would be required.

4.15.1 Introduction This section identifies and evaluates potential impacts to agricultural resources that could result from implementation of the Clean Fuels Expansion Project (CFEP). It includes a description of existing land use conditions in relation to agricultural resources and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Project.

4.15.2 Setting

4.15.2.1 Regional Setting Contra Costa County is considered one of the fastest-growing counties in the San Francisco Bay Area. The County is the ninth most populous county in California, with its population reaching approximately 1,020,898 as of January 2005 (California Department of Finance (DOF), 2005). This represents an increase of approximately 25 percent compared to the County’s population in 1990. The rapid increase in population has resulted in the conversion of agricultural lands to other land uses. The County’s land area totals 481,430 acres, 147,859 of which are allocated to farmlands and harvested cropland. The total acreage classified as agricultural land dropped by approximately 35,902 acres from 1984 to 2004 (California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP), 2006).

4.15.2.2 Project Setting The Proposed Project would be constructed and operated within the operating area of the existing Refinery. Most of the Refinery site is designated Heavy Industry (HI) in the Contra Costa County General Plan. There are no lands designated as prime farmland on or in the immediate vicinity of the Refinery. The nearest Agricultural Preserve District (A-4) zoning designation, which is applied to lands covered by a Williamson Act contract, is located approximately 1.5 miles east of the Refinery property line where it intersects with San Pablo Avenue (Contra Costa County, 2000). Additional information regarding land use and planning in the Proposed Project area is discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use, Plans, and Policies.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.15-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Agricultural Resources

4.15.2.3 Regulatory Setting

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program The DLRP, has established the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), which monitors the conversion of the state’s farmland to and from agricultural use. The program also produces a biannual report on the amount of land converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use. The program maintains an inventory of state agricultural land and updates its “Important Farmland Series Maps” every two years. The FMMP is an informational service only and does not constitute state regulation of local land use decisions. Four categories of farmland – Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance – are considered valuable and any conversion of land within these categories is typically considered an adverse impact. The Proposed Project does not occupy or affect areas designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance (DLRP 2004).

California Land Conservation Act The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural, or related open space use. Under the provisions of the Williamson Act, landowners contract with the County to maintain agricultural or open space use of their lands in return for a reduced property tax assessment. The contract is self-renewing and the landowner may notify the County at any time of intent to withdraw the land from its preserve status. Withdrawal involves a ten-year period of tax adjustment to full market value before protected agricultural land or open space can be converted to urban uses. Consequently, land under the Williamson Act Contract can be in either a renewal status or a nonrenewable status. The Proposed Project site is not within an area subject to a Williams Act Contract (DLRP, 2004).

Contra Costa County General Plan The Land Use and Conservation Elements of the Contra Costa County General Plan contain goals and policies related to agricultural resources. The Refinery site is designated Heavy Industry (HI) in the General Plan, and is not zoned for agricultural use. The site is within the County’s designated Urban Limit Line1, which is intended to limit development and preserve land for parks, open space, agriculture, wetlands and other non-urban uses.

The Conservation Element provides the framework for preserving the remaining agricultural lands within the County. The goals and policies related to agriculture are summarized as follows:

• Encourage and enhance agriculture, and to maintain and promote a healthy and competitive agriculture economy. • Conserve prime productive agricultural land outside the Urban Limit Line exclusively for agriculture.

1 See also Section 4.10, Land Use, Plans, and Policies

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.15-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Agricultural Resources

• Minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban uses. • Encourage cooperation between the County and cities in the preservation of agricultural lands.

4.15.3 Significance Criteria and Discussion of No Impacts

Significance Criteria The significance criteria for this analysis were developed from criteria presented in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G. The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to agricultural resources if it would: a) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use; b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; or c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.

Discussion of No Agricultural Resources Impacts Review and comparison of the setting circumstances and Proposed Project characteristics with each of the three significance criteria stated above clearly show that no agricultural resource impacts would result. The following discusses the reasoning supporting this conclusion: a. Potential of the Proposed Project to convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance to non-agricultural use.

The Proposed Project would be located entirely within the developed area of the Refinery. The Refinery, which is a heavy industrial use, has operated on this site for over 100 years. Both the County Zoning Map and the General Plan Land Use Element Map designate the site for heavy industrial use. The Proposed Project site is not identified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map; it is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. Thus, the Proposed Project would have no impact on important farmland. b. Potential of the Proposed Project to Conflict with existing agricultural zoning, or a Williamson Act contract?

The Refinery property is zoned for heavy industrial uses and is not covered by a Williamson Act contract. Thus, implementation of the Proposed Project would not interact with or conflict with existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract. The Proposed Project would have no impact.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.15-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Agricultural Resources c. Potential of the Proposed Project to involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use.

The Proposed Project would be constructed and operated entirely within the developed area of the Refinery. The Proposed Project site does not contain farmland and there are no aspects of the Proposed Project that would affect any identified agricultural land offsite. Thus, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in conversion of farmland, onsite or offsite, to a non-agricultural use. The Proposed Project would have no impact.

4.15.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures As described in Section 4.15.3, the Proposed Project would result in no impacts to agricultural resources; and no mitigation would be required.

4.15.5 Cumulative Impacts

Potential of the Proposed Project to Contribute to Agricultural Resource Impacts that are Individually Limited, but Cumulatively Considerable. No Impact.

As explained in Section 4.15.3 above, the construction and operation of the Proposed Project would result in no impacts to agricultural resources or to lands designated for such use. Thus, the Proposed Project could not contribute to cumulative impacts to agricultural resources that could be caused by implementation of other Refinery and non-Refinery projects. There would be no cumulative impacts to agricultural resources as a result of the Proposed Project.

References – Agricultural Resources California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP), Contra Costa County Williamson Act Lands 2004, ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/WA/ Map%20and%20PDF/Contra%20Costa/contra%20costa%20wa%2004_05.pdf, 2004.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP), Contra Costa County Acreage Summary (1984 – 2004), www.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp/ stats_reports/county_acreage_summaries.htm, 2006.

California Department of Finance (DOF), City/County Population and Housing Estimates, as of January 1, 2005, www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/E-5a.xls, 2005.

Contra Costa County Community Development Department, Summary Results of June 2000 65/35 Land Use Inventory, www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/advance/6535_map.pdf, June 2000.

Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), January 2005.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.15-4 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.16 Mineral Resources

There are no mineral resources within the vicinity of the Refinery that are mapped in the General Plan, a specific plan, or other land use plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that is locally important. The Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that is classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist and that is therefore a known mineral resource of value to the region and the residents of the state. In summary, there would be no impacts to existing mineral resources.

4.16.1 Introduction This section evaluates the potential loss of availability of known mineral resources due to land use conversions. Considering the Proposed Project location and setting, construction aggregate was considered the mineral resource of primary concern. Mineral resource classification within this region is based on the presence or absence of significant sand, gravel, and stone deposits that are suitable as sources of construction aggregate. Deposits of other mineral resources, such as crude oil, gold, and silver, are not considered for this region because the geologic conditions are not suitable for such deposits.

Information in this section is derived primarily from the “Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the San Francisco–Monterey Bay Area,” prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG),1 1983. Additional information in this section is derived from “Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region,” prepared by the California Geological Survey (CGS), 1996.

4.16.2 Setting

4.16.2.1 Regional Setting Mineral resources in Contra Costa County include aggregate and stone for commercial, industrial, and construction uses. There are several active quarry mining operations in the county, which generate essential aggregate and mineral resources. These materials include: (1) broken and crushed stone used primarily for waterway armor (riprap); (2) crushed rock used mainly as road base; (3) sand and gravel used as bituminous and concrete aggregate; (4) specialty sands including foundry and glass; and (5) dimension stone. The quarries of Contra Costa County include: two quarries at Mt. Diablo for production of crushed stone; one quarry which produced graywacke-type sandstone at Castro Point; one quarry which produced Pliocene Moraga volcanic rocks near Orinda; two quarries which produced Tertiary sandstone at Pacheco and Walnut Creek. Antioch sand dunes provided sand from two pits. There were two sandstone beds of the

1 The CDMG has recently been renamed and is now the California Geological Survey (CGS).

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.16-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources

Domengine formation (Eocene) with two quarries located near Cowell and one quarry was located in Antioch.

4.16.2.2 Project Setting The Refinery is located in an unincorporated portion Contra Costa County, near the town of Rodeo, (see Figure 3-1, Site Location). This area has a long history of mining, which began at the turn of the century and included operations to support brick manufacturing and extraction of materials for land fill. There are no oil, gas, or hydrothermal resources either beneath or adjacent to the Refinery property (Contra Costa County, 2005).

The California Geologic Survey (CGS, formerly CDMG) has designated the area occupied by the Refinery as mineral classification zones MRZ-3b and MRZ-4 (all mineral classification zones are defined below, under Regulatory Setting). MRZ-3b sites are those that contain inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined significance (CDMG, 1996), while MRZ-4 sites are those where there is insufficient data to assign the area to any other zone.

4.16.3 Regulatory Setting This section briefly describes federal, state and local regulations, permits, and policies pertaining to mineral resources as they apply to the Proposed Project.

California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975 requires classification of land into Mineral Resources Zones (MRZs), according to the known or inferred mineral potential of that area. SMARA is part of California Public Resources Code (PRC), Division 2, Chapter 9, Sections 2710, et seq. Oil operations in California are regulated by the Division of Oil and Gas of the Department of Conservation (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §3000 et seq.).

Depending on the region, natural resources can include geologic deposits of valuable minerals used in manufacturing processes and the production of construction materials. The SMARA was enacted in 1975 to limit new development in areas with significant mineral deposits. SMARA requires the office of the acting state geologist to classify the lands within California based on mineral resource availability. The state geologist is responsible for classifying areas within California that are subject to urban expansion or other irreversible land uses. These classifications are by Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs), according to the presence or absence of significant mineral resources. The process is based solely on the underlying geology without regard to existing land use or land ownership. The primary goal of the mineral land classification is to ensure that the mineral potential of the land is recognized by local government decision-makers and considered before making land use decisions that could preclude mining. CGS’s Special Publication 51 provides the guidance for MRZ identification; the criteria for establishing the zones are based on four general categories:

MRZ-1 applies to areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.16-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources

MRZ-2 applies to areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence. MRZ-3 applies to areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated. MRZ-4 applies to areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other zone. SMARA states that the extraction of minerals is essential to the continued economic well-being of the State and to the needs of society, and the reclamation of mined lands is necessary to prevent or minimize adverse effects on the environment and to protect the public health and safety. The reclamation of mined lands will permit the continued mining of minerals and will provide for the protection and subsequent beneficial use of the mined and reclaimed land. Surface mining takes place in diverse areas where the geologic, topographic, climatic, biological, and social conditions are significantly different. Accordingly, reclamation operations and their specifications may vary (PRC §2711).

Contra Costa County The Conservation Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan contains goals and policies related to mineral resources. These goals and policies are summarized as follows:

• Ensure the continued viability of mineral extraction operations. • Protect areas of identified valuable mineral resources from incompatible neighboring land uses. • Encourage development of compatible uses within 1,000 feet of quarry sites. • Minimize the disturbance to sensitive land uses located in the vicinity of quarries. • Prepare reclamation plans addressing the future use of quarry sites. (Contra Costa County, 2005) 4.16.3 Significance Criteria and Discussion of No Impacts

Significance Criteria California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G states that a project would have a significant impact on mineral resources if it would:

a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.

b. Result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.

Discussion of No Mineral Resources Impacts Review and comparison of the setting circumstances and Proposed Project characteristics with each of the two significance criteria stated above clearly shows that no mineral resource impacts would result. The following discusses the reasoning supporting this conclusion:

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.16-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources a. Potential of the Proposed Project to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.

The Refinery, which is considered a heavy industrial use, has operated on this site for over 100 years. Despite some potential for mineral resources to be present beneath the site, the existing Refinery processing units and operations preclude access to any potential resources. The Proposed Project elements would be located entirely within the developed area of the Refinery, that is, on land where access to mineral resources is already precluded. Thus, the Proposed Project would have no impact on the availability of mineral resources. b. Potential of the Proposed Project to result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.

The Refinery site is not delineated by the 2005-2020 General Plan as a significant mineral resource area (Contra Costa County, 2005). In addition, as stated above, the area of the Refinery where the Proposed Project would be constructed is already developed and dedicated to Refinery operations. Thus, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site.

4.16.4 Mineral Resources Impacts and Mitigation Measures As described in Section 4.16.3, the Proposed Project would result in no impact to mineral resources; no mitigation would be required.

4.16.5 Cumulative Mineral Resources Impacts Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in cumulative impacts to mineral resources. According to the CGS and the Contra Costa County General Plan, no mineral resource deposits have been identified in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. As explained in Section 4.16.3 above, implementation of the Proposed Project would have no impact on the availability of either known or unknown mineral resources. Considering the amount of undeveloped land that is part of the Refinery property, it is possible that implementation of other Refinery projects would result in impacts to mineral resources. It is also possible that non-Refinery projects would result in mineral resource impacts. The impacts of those projects could be cumulatively considerable. However, because the Proposed Project would not impact mineral resources, it would not contribute to cumulative mineral resource impacts that might result from implementation of other Refinery and non-Refinery projects. No mitigation measures are required.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.16-4 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources

References – Mineral Resources California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) (now referred to as the California Geological Survey), “Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region,” Open-File Report 96-03, 1996. Contra Costa County, 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), January 2005. California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975, California Public Resources Code (PRC), Division 2, Chapter 9, Sections 2710, et seq. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 3000 et seq. California Public Resources code Section 3000.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.16-5 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.17 Employment, Population, and Housing

Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth, either directly or indirectly.

Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would increase population insubstantially by increasing temporary and long-term employment: • During peak periods, the temporary construction workforce is expected to reach between 480 and 834 workers. • Operation of the Proposed Project would require approximately 27 new full- time employees. The Proposed Project would not displace people or housing. There would be no impact or less-than-significant impacts to employment, population, or housing. No mitigation would be required.

4.17.1 Introduction This section identifies and evaluates the potential impacts related to employment, population, and housing that would result from Proposed Project implementation. This section includes a description of existing and projected conditions, criteria used to determine impact significance, and a discussion of impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Project.

4.17.2 Setting

4.17.2.1 Regional Setting The population of the Bay Area, which consists of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma counties, was approximately 7,091,700 in 2005. The area is growing rapidly, with 20 percent growth expected to occur from 2000 to 2020 (Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2005). The population of Contra Costa County is approximately 1,020,900, making it the ninth most populous county in California (California Department of Finance (DOF), 2005). Employment growth for the County is driven by the need to provide services to an increasing Bay Area population. Due to regional growth, Contra Costa County has one of the fastest growing work forces among Bay Area counties. In addition, Contra Costa County has experienced an immigration of white-collar jobs due to the relocation of companies from costlier locations in the Bay Area. The County’s labor force added 6,700 workers from 2000 to 2004, raising the total work force to 507,700. Of these, approximately 28,300 are employed by the construction sector. Contra Costa County’s unemployment rate has been consistently lower than the rate for the State of California. The unemployment rate for California peaked at 6.1 percent in 2003 then declined to 5.4 percent in December 2005. Contra Costa County’s unemployment rate was 4.6 percent in December 2005

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.17-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Employment, Population, and Housing

(California Employment and Development Department (EDD), 2006). There are approximately 24,800 unemployed persons on average in Contra Costa County.

The Bay Area’s economy has produced more jobs than housing units, particularly in job-rich communities. Consequently, the cost of buying or renting a place to live in the region has escalated. Given the amount, location, and type of housing being planned, the region’s housing costs are expected to remain among the highest in the nation. The vacancy rate for housing in the Bay Area was 6.8 percent in 2004, which is twice the 3.4 percent Bay Area vacancy rate in 2000. The vacancy rate for Contra Costa County was 5.8 percent in 2004 (ABAG, 2004). Of the approximately 2,641,000 housing units in the Bay area, approximately 40 percent are renter occupied and 60 percent are owner occupied. The total number of housing units in Contra Costa County was 376,431 in 2004.

4.17.2.2 Project Setting The Refinery is located in the unincorporated community of Rodeo, which has a population of over 8,800 with approximately 2,882 households. The median income for a household is $60,522, and the median income for a family is $63,151 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). The nearest housing community to the Proposed Project area is the Bayo Vista neighborhood, located adjacent to the Refinery to the South. To enhance housing availability for the area, 248 new housing units are planned for the Bayo Vista community (Contra Costa County, 2005). The Refinery currently has approximately 575 permanent and contract employees, and the majority of the existing workforce lives either within the community of Rodeo or within reasonable commuting distance of the Refinery. Contra Costa County has a labor force of approximately 521,000 persons, of which 4,900 are located within Rodeo. In 2005 the unemployment rate for Rodeo was at 6.8 percent, which is about 2.2 percent higher than the overall rate for the County (California EDD, 2006).

4.17.2.3 Regulatory Setting

Contra Costa County General Plan The Land Use and Housing Elements of the Contra Costa County General Plan contain goals and policies related to employment and housing. These goals and policies are summarized as follows:

• Create a jobs/housing balance. • Create housing opportunities for all income levels. • Create a diversity of housing options. • Maintain and improve the quality of the existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods. • Provide adequate sites through appropriate land use and zoning designations to accommodate the County’s share of regional housing needs. • Protect the economic welfare of the County by planning appropriately-sized, well-located employment areas. • Encourage industries that employ the skills of County residents.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.17-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Employment, Population, and Housing

The overarching goal of the County is to develop a balance between jobs and housing availability with consideration given to wage levels, commute distance and housing affordability (Contra Costa County, 2005).

4.17.3 Significance Criteria and Discussion of No Impact

Significance Criteria California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G states that a project would have a significant impact on population and housing if it would: a) Induce substantial population growth either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Discussion of No Impacts Review and comparison of the setting circumstances and Proposed Project characteristics with each of the three significance criteria stated above, clearly show that no impacts would result with respect to displacement of people or housing. The following discusses the reasoning supporting this conclusion: b. Would the Proposed Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

The Proposed Project would be constructed and operations conducted entirely within the Refinery boundaries. No housing exists on the Refinery property. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing. No impact would result. c. Would the Proposed Project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

The Proposed Project would be constructed and operations conducted entirely within the Refinery boundaries. There are no residents on the Refinery property. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of people. No impact would result.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.17-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Employment, Population, and Housing

4.17.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 4.17-1: Construction and operation of the Proposed Project could directly induce temporary and permanent population growth. Construction of the Proposed Project would likely lead to a temporary influx of construction workers to the Bay Area and operation of the Proposed Project would require approximately 27 long-term workers, all of which could be new residents. The temporary and long-term population increases and corresponding demand for housing resulting from the creation of new employment opportunities would be less-than-significant impacts.

The potential impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be direct impacts caused by the creation of new employment opportunities. The Proposed Project does not include new offsite infrastructure or other improvements that could lead indirectly to population growth.

Construction of the Proposed Project would require several hundred construction workers over the approximate 18 to 21-month construction period, which would begin in the first quarter of 2007. Many of the construction jobs would be seasonal or would be specific to certain construction skills or activities. Depending on whether the peak construction periods for the individual components of the Proposed Project coincide, the construction workforce is expected to reach a peak of between 480 and 834 workers.

The construction workforce would be drawn primarily from the construction labor pool available in the Bay Area. Current Bay Area residents would be expected to commute rather than move. Therefore, that portion of the new construction jobs that is filled by current Bay Area residents would have no impact population or housing.

It is anticipated that up to 20 percent of the construction workforce would be drawn to the Bay Area on a temporary basis. Considering the possible peak workforce demand, this equates to a maximum of 167 workers at any one time. Because it would be temporary and minimal given the total population of the area, this population growth would be a less-than-significant impact.

It would be necessary for the temporarily relocated workers to locate suitable housing1 in Contra Costa County or elsewhere in the Bay Area. The Bay Area had a housing vacancy rate of 6.8 percent in 2004, meaning that 179,588 units were unoccupied (ABAG, 2005). Given the anticipated number of temporary workers and the number of vacant housing units, it is clear that housing would generally be available within the greater Bay Area to meet the temporary increase in demand. Therefore, the impact on housing resulting from the temporary population increase would be less-than-significant.

1 It is anticipated that construction workers would prefer rental housing due to the temporary nature of the work.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.17-4 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Employment, Population, and Housing in this conservative scenario, the potential number of new residents would be insignificant given the total population of the area and the housing vacancy rate. Therefore, the impacts to population and housing resulting from the creation of approximately 27 new long-term jobs would be less- than-significant.

Mitigation: None required.

4.17.5 Cumulative Impacts

Impact 4.17-2: The Proposed Project would contribute to temporary and permanent increases in population and associated increases in the demand for housing. However, the contributions would be so insignificant that they would not be cumulatively considerable. This would be a less-than-significant impact.

As discussed in Impact 4.17-1, construction and operation of the Proposed Project would directly induce population growth through the creation of new temporary and long-term employment opportunities. Construction of the Proposed Project would necessitate the temporary relocation of approximately 167 workers to the Bay Area and operation of the Proposed Project would require approximately 27 new long-term workers.

Implementation of the Proposed Project, together with implementation of other Refinery and non- Refinery projects, would have insubstantial cumulative effects on population and housing. The population of the Bay Area exceeds 7,000,000 and as of 2004 there were 179,588 vacant housing units. Given the total area population and the scale of the area’s supporting infrastructure, the Proposed Project’s potential to add approximately 167 temporary and 27 long-term workers is insignificant. Thus, the minor population increase and associated housing demand increase that would result from the Proposed Project amounts to a less-than-significant cumulative impact.

Mitigation: None required.

References – Employment, Population, and Housing Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), ABAG Projections 2005 – City, County and Census Tract Forecasts 2000-2030, http://data.abag.ca.gov/p2005/regional.htm, 2005.

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Bay Area Census – 2004 Estimates for San Francisco Bay Area and Contra Costa County, www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/bayarea.htm, 2004.

California Department of Finance (DOF), City/County Population and Housing Estimates, January 1, 2005, www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/E-5a.xls, January 2005.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.17-5 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Employment, Population, and Housing

California Employment Development Department (EDD), Contra Costa County Snapshot, www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov, accessed February 6, 2006.

U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF3) – Sample Data, http://factfinder.census.gov, accessed February 6, 2006.

Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), January 2005.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.17-6 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.18 Parks and Recreation

The Proposed Project, located within the developed area of the Refinery, would add approximately 27 workers to the workforce. There are no park or recreation facilities within the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Project. • The Proposed Project would result in insubstantial increases in workers and in population within the County, and therefore would result in insubstantial increases in the demand for park and recreation facilities. • The Proposed Project would neither include nor result in the need for the construction of additional park or recreation facilities that might have an adverse effect on the environment. • The Proposed Project’s contributions to cumulative impacts on park or recreation facilities would not be considerable. As a result, the Proposed Project would result in no impact or less-than-significant impacts to park or recreation facilities. No mitigation measures would be required.

4.18.1 Introduction This section identifies and evaluates issues related to park and recreation resources in the context of the Clean Fuels Expansion Project (CFEP). It includes a description of existing conditions, criteria used to determine impact significance, and a discussion of impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Project.

4.18.2 Setting Contra Costa County contains numerous recreational facilities, including major parks and open space areas, local parks, and private recreational facilities.

Regional Parks and Major Open Space Areas Regional parks and major open space areas provide places where people can enjoy active and passive recreation activities that focus on interaction with the natural environment. These activities typically include nature studies, camping, hiking, observing the natural landscape, and the like. Regional parks and major open space areas often encompass hundreds or even thousands of acres and are typically established in order to protect uniquely valuable natural resources. Therefore, each regional park and open space area itself is unique and offers specific recreational opportunities that are not otherwise available in the immediate vicinity of most Bay Area residents. Within Contra Costa County, regional parks and open spaces areas are owned and managed by federal and state governments, the East Bay Regional Parks District, and municipalities. Within ten miles of the Proposed Project site, regional parks and open space areas include San Pablo Bay Shore, Wildcat Canyon, Sobrante Ridge, and the Martinez Shoreline. The closest regional park is the Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline Park located approximately 3/4 of a mile east of the Proposed Project site (Contra Costa County, 2005).

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.18-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Parks and Recreation

Local Parks Local parks are areas set aside for active and passive recreational uses in the immediate vicinity of their users. These parks might include play apparatus for children, play areas, sports fields and courts, swimming pools, community centers, picnic areas, and open grass areas. Local parks are found in developed areas and often serve as focal points for neighborhoods and communities. They are places where residents can meet and enjoy their leisure time together and where community events can be held. The closest local park to the Proposed Project area is Alexander Park located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Proposed Project site (Contra Costa County, 2005).

Private Recreational Facilities Numerous privately-owned (commercial) recreational facilities are located within Contra Costa County. These facilities provide recreational opportunities for both children and adults for a fee. Private recreational facilities in the County include amusement parks, exercise and fitness centers, golf courses, and skating rinks. There are no private recreational facilities on or in the vicinity of the Proposed Project site.

Contra Costa County General Plan The Open Space Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan contains goals and policies related to parks and recreation. These goals and policies are summarized as follows:

• Develop a sufficient amount of conveniently located, properly designated parks and recreational facilities to serve the needs of all residents. • Preserve major parklands and areas of natural beauty or historical interest for future generations. • Promote active and passive recreational enjoyment of the County’s physical amenities. • Preserve a well balanced distribution of local parks. • Distribute and manage recreational activity according to an area’s carrying capacity, with special emphasis on controlling adverse environmental impacts. (Contra Costa County, 2005)

4.18.3 Significance Criteria and Discussion of No Impact

Significance Criteria California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G states that a project would have a significant recreation-related impact if it would: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.18-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Parks and Recreation b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Discussion of No Impact Review and comparison of the Proposed Project’s setting and characteristics with each of the two significance criteria stated above clearly shows that no recreational impacts would result with respect to additional park or recreation facilities construction. The following discusses the reasoning supporting this conclusion: b. Potential of the Proposed Project to include or require the construction of additional park or recreation facilities, which might have an adverse effect on the environment.

Additional parks and recreational facilities would not be necessary as a result of the Proposed Project. As explained in Section 4.18.4 below, the population increase associated with the Proposed Project would not be large enough to significantly affect parks and recreational facilities. The Proposed Project does not include parks or recreational facilities. Thus, there would be no impact related to construction.

4.18.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures As discussed above, the Proposed Project would employ approximately 27 new employees. This increase in County population would, in turn, incrementally increase the demand for recreational facilities. However, this increase in population, and the associated increase in demand would be insubstantial.

Impact 4.18-1: The Proposed Project would lead to temporary and permanent population increases. This in turn would lead to increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities. However, because the population increases would be insignificant, the associated increases in the use of parks and recreational facilities would also be insignificant and would not result in substantial or accelerated physical deterioration. This impact would be less-than-significant.

Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would lead to temporary and long-term increases in population. As discussed more thoroughly in Section 4.17 Employment, Population, and Housing, approximately 167 construction workers would be expected to relocate temporarily to the area and approximately 27 new long-term employees would be added to the Refinery.

Major infrastructure improvements such as parks and recreational facilities are generally planned and constructed to serve hundreds to thousands of people. The population increase resulting from the Proposed Project would be minor in relation to the overall population of the area and it would be expected that the new residents would be dispersed throughout multiple communities. Thus, the actual increase in users at each park or recreational facility would be insignificant in relation to the design capacity. Therefore, it is not reasonable to judge that minor increases in usage such

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.18-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Parks and Recreation as those associated with the Proposed Project would result in substantial or accelerated physical deterioration of parks and recreational facilities. The impact would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation: None required.

4.18.5 Cumulative Impacts

Impact 4.18-2: The Proposed Project would make a contribution to cumulative increases in use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. However, because the direct increases in use would be insubstantial, the Proposed Project’s contributions to parks use would not be cumulatively considerable. This impact would be less-than-significant.

Non-Refinery cumulative projects could adversely affect parks and recreational facilities and services if those projects were to include substantial housing components, increasing the number of residents in the County, or include other retail or cultural components that otherwise increase the demand on parks and recreational facilities by drawing recreational users to the vicinity of those parks or facilities. However, the construction and operation of the Proposed Project, as well as other cumulative Refinery projects, would have less-than-significant adverse cumulative impacts on parks and recreational facilities and services because such Refinery projects do not induce substantial population increases and they are not the type of project that increases the demand on parks and recreational facilities and services.

Mitigation: None required.

References – Parks and Recreation Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County General Plan (2005–2020), January 2005.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 4.18-4 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report CHAPTER 5 CEQA Statutory Sections

5.1 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Impacts

As discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, there are no significant unavoidable impacts for construction and operation of the Proposed Project.

5.2 Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project and the mitigation measures that would become part of the Proposed Project have been extracted from the analyses and evaluations in Chapter 4 of this document. Cumulative impacts are summarized in Section 5.2.5, Areas of Potential Cumulative Impact and are analyzed by considering the effects of the Proposed Project combined with concurrent projects and approved or planned projects in the vicinity of the Refinery, as well as future development that could occur under adopted plans, such as the Contra Costa County General Plan, or applicable regional plans.

5.2.1 Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended1, guides environmental review in California. All aspects of the preparation of the Draft EIR and its review, as well as the subsequent steps to prepare a Final EIR are specifically outlined by CEQA and its Guidelines2. The CEQA Guidelines define a cumulative impact as one resulting from the combined effect of the Proposed Project plus all other reasonably foreseeable projects. CEQA requires that:

• Cumulative impacts be discussed when they may be significant;

• The discussion may be more general than that for the individual project impacts, but the discussion should reflect the potential extent, severity, and probability of the impact;

• The cumulative impact analysis can be based on a list of reasonably foreseeable projects or projections from a General Plan or a regional planning agency; and

• Reasonable options for mitigating or avoiding the Proposed Project’s contribution to significant cumulative impacts be proposed, noting that for some cumulative impacts the

1 Public Resources Code, Division 13, Sections 21000 – 21178, accessible at world wide web address http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/stat/ 2 Title 14. California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 – 15387 and Appendices, accessible at http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/guidelines/

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 5-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 5. CEQA Statutory Sections

only feasible mitigation may involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a project-by-project basis.

This section contains the cumulative impact analysis for the environmental areas addressed in Sections 4.1 through 4.18 of this Environmental Impact Report. Although gathered and considered here, the effects of these cumulative impacts also were included in the impact assessments in those sections.

The key characteristics of a cumulative impact analysis are:

• A project impact (significant or not), plus;

• Impacts from other projects of the same type as that of the project, as well as projects with similar impacts, such as traffic. The consideration of other projects of the same type is especially important here, where cumulative projects include other ongoing refinery projects;

• The interaction of these impacts to create a cumulative impact affecting the same geographic unit of analysis as that of the proposed project; and

• Determination of whether the contribution of the project impact is cumulatively considerable.

5.2.2 General and Regional Plans Considered in the Cumulative Analysis To determine the effects of projects that may not be well defined or are unforeseen, this CEQA analysis turned to various planning documents including but not limited to the following:

• Contra Costa County General Plan • Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA) Transportation Plan • Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Plans • Regional Planning Documents from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) • Contra Costa Congestion Management Program Such local and regional plans are prepared by cities, counties and other governmental agencies in California to meet requirements of state and federal laws. These plans are comprehensive, long- term plans for the physical development of the city, county, or region, and any land outside its boundaries, which bears relation to its planning. For example, the Contra Costa County General Plan, updated in April 2006, includes specific policies to preserve and enhance existing development and to provide for orderly and appropriate new development until approximately the year 2020. Actions and approvals required for the Proposed Project by the Contra Costa County Community Development Department must be consistent with the General Plan.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 5-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 5. CEQA Statutory Sections

5.2.3 Specific Projects Considered in the Cumulative Analysis The specific aspects of the plans discussed in Section 5.2.2 above, that would interact with potential Proposed Project impacts and have the same effects within the same geographic area were included in the cumulative analysis. This approach is consistent with CEQA Guideline Section 15130 for cumulative impact analysis. To further supplement this plan-based analysis, planned projects for both the Refinery and the local area were also considered.

At the time the Refinery submitted its application for the Proposed Project to the County (May 2005), it already had a number of projects in the approval process, under construction or for which construction had been recently completed. These projects, described in Table 5-1, are not part of the Proposed Project. With the exception of the first two listed projects [Ultra-Low-Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) and Delayed Coker], which were completed early in 2005, no other project required CEQA review because no discretionary approval was needed. These other projects represent modifications and improvements that are typical for an operating refinery and the activities associated with their construction and operation fall into the category of routine refinery operations and maintenance. The environmental effects of these other projects, therefore, are effectively accounted for within the scope of the Refinery’s existing baseline activities for the purpose of analyzing direct and cumulative impacts in this EIR.

Also considered in the Draft EIR were known or planned related refinery/energy infrastructure projects occurring or planned close to or within the local project area. These related projects are listed in Table 5-2, following.

Within the general area of the Refinery in the unincorporated portion of Rodeo at the time of the publication of this document there were no known major active CEQA projects outside the Refinery. The next nearest community, the City of Hercules has a number of residential, industrial and commercial projects in progress or planned. The summary of these are shown on Table 5-3.

5.2.4 Approach and Methodology of the Analysis To illustrate the approach and methodology used in this EIR for cumulative analysis, Table 5-4 shows for each environmental category the plan basis as well as the types of projects considered to assess cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project.

The table shows the extent of plans and projects considered in the cumulative impact analysis. The conclusions of the analysis are presented under the discussion of impacts for each environmental category in Sections 4.1 through 4.18 and are summarized in the following section of this document.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 5-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 5. CEQA Statutory Sections

TABLE 5-1 REFINERY PROJECTS CONSIDERED IN THE CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS

CEQA Review / Date Application Description Discretionary?

2003 Ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) project allowed Refinery to produce ULSD efficiently by Yes using a broader array of crude oil as feedstock, and increased crude throughput capacity. Project completed early 2005.

2004 Delayed Coker (Unit 200) increase in capacity from 56,000 to 81,000 barrels per day Yes (bbl/day) as part of the ULSD project. This application submitted to amend the Title V permit. Project completed early 2005.

2004 Light Naphtha Hydrotreater (Unit 229) increase in capacity from 9,507 to 12,198 No bbl/day.

2004 Unicracking Unit (Unit 240) increase in capacity from 38,000 to 42,000 bbl/day. No

2004 Reforming Unit (Unit 244) increase in capacity from 14,000 to 16,082 bbl/day. No

2004 Sludge Thickener (Unit 100) increase in pump rate from 30 to 60 gallons per minute. No

2004 Steam Power Plant and heaters - modify permit condition for use of Selective Catalytic No Reduction (SCR).

2004 Prefractionator/Naphtha Hydrotreater (unit 230) increase in capacity from 25,300 to No 28,000 bbl/day.

2004 Product Blending (Unit 76) throughput changes including eliminating the diesel limit No (due to negligible emissions) and increasing the gasoline limit from 80,000 to 113,150 bbl/day.

2004 Cooling Towers that emit greater than 5 tons per year of an air contaminant were No permitted.

2005 Unicracker Cooling Tower – installed drift eliminator to reduce particulate emissions. No

2005 Existing Hydrogen Plant (Unit 110) increase in production from 25 to 28.5 million No standard cubic feet per day (MMscf/day) and increase in heater duty from 210 to 250 million British Thermal Units per hour (MMBtu/hour).

2005 Crude Unit (Unit 267) change in throughput from 30,000 to 36,000 bbl/day. No

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 5-4 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 5. CEQA Statutory Sections

TABLE 5-2 LOCAL REFINERY/ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Valero Improvement Project: The Valero Benicia Refinery proposes a series of modifications and additions. The project would provide ability to process lower grades of raw materials and provide flexibility to substitute raw materials. In addition, the project would optimize operations for efficient production of clean burning fuels. This project was approved by the City of Benicia in 2003 and was scheduled to be implemented during a seven-year period. PG&E Richmond Fuel Oil Pipeline Divesture Project: PG&E proposed to sell its heated Richmond-to-Pittsburg Fuel Oil Pipeline. The activities considered include the sale of the pipeline by PG&E, and the reconstruction of a 4,000-foot section of the pipeline that was removed in 1998 to allow construction of a railway station in the City of Martinez. This project was approved by the California Public Utilities Commission in spring 2005 and implementation of the project has not yet been scheduled. Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project: The Chevron Richmond Refinery is seeking approval of a conditional Land Use Permit for the project. The Renewal Project consists of replacement and upgrade of certain manufacturing facilities to improve the Refinery’s ability to provide gasoline for local and export markets using the wide range of crude oil sources that are currently processed. While the proposed project would not increase the Refinery’s consumption of crude oil beyond currently permitted levels, it would improve the Refinery’s ability to process a more varied proportional mix of crude oil types than it currently processes. Other Chevron Richmond Refinery Projects: At the time the Chevron Richmond Refinery submitted its application for the Renewal Project to the City of Richmond (April 2005), it already had a number of projects in the approval process or under construction. These projects are discussed in brief below and are not part of the Renewal Project. They are however considered for the purpose of analyzing cumulative impacts in this EIR: TURBO - The Chevron Richmond Refinery has proposed to increase the capacity of the Richmond Lube Oil Project (RLOP). The Three-Stage Upgrade to Richmond Base Oil (TURBO) consists of modifications to four RLOP process units: Light Neutral Cracker, Light Neutral Hydro-Finisher, Heavy Neutral Cracker, and Heavy Neutral Hydro-Finisher. It includes modification to a RLOP process furnace (the Heavy Neutral Hydro- Finisher Vacuum Stripper Feed Furnace) and includes alteration to the RLOP Gas Recovery Unit and Heavy Neutral Cracker Vacuum Column Feed Furnace. An Authority to Construct / Permit to Operate application was submitted to the BAAQMD in September 2004; BAAQMD will be lead agency for the environmental review process. The timing for implementation of the TURBO project is anticipated to be by the first quarter of 2007. Butane Selective Hydrogenation Unit - The Butane Selective Hydrogenation Unit (C4 SHU) project at the Chevron Richmond Refinery would result in modification to the existing Refinery Alkylation Plant (BAAQMD Source No. S-4291) and involves the installation of one process vessel, two heat exchangers (non- combustion sources), and piping/piping components. The C4 SHU was assigned BAAQMD Source No. S- 4357 as part of the Reformulated Fuels & FCC Modernization Project. EBMUD Richmond Advanced Recycle Expansion (RARE) Water Project - The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) is proposing implementation of the Richmond Advanced Recycled Expansion (RARE) Water Project. The purpose of the RARE Water Project would be to produce high-purity recycled water for boiler make-up water applications at the Refinery. The use of up to 4 million gallons per day (MGD) of recycled water would save an equivalent amount of fresh potable water, reducing the threat of severe rationing to EBMUD’s 1.3 million customers during droughts. The project would treat the secondary effluent from the West County Wastewater District, which would otherwise be discharged to the Bay, to produce high-purity recycled water for use as boiler make-up water at the Refinery. The use of additional recycled water at the Refinery would reduce the demand on available potable water, which is currently used for boiler make-up water. The project would require construction of a 4 MGD advanced recycled water facility within the Chevron Refinery. The project treatment facility would be owned and operated by EBMUD in parallel with its existing North Richmond Water Reclamation Plant (NRWRP). EBMUD expects to release a Draft EIR for the RARE Water Project near the end of 2006. Construction for this project is expected to occur between 2008 and 2009. For the purposes of the cumulative impacts analysis in this EIR, it is assumed that the RARE Water Project would be built and constructed at the Refinery at a tentative location northeast of Chevron’s bioreactor. The project would consist of an approximately 17,000 square foot treatment system building, a 600,000 gallon tank approximately 80 feet in diameter, a 2,000,000 gallon tank approximately 120 feet in diameter, a pump station, and other smaller buildings and tanks that would occupy a site approximately 300 by 300 feet in size.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 5-5 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 5. CEQA Statutory Sections

TABLE 5-2 (continued) LOCAL REFINERY/ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Alkylation Plant Cooling Tower Upgrade - The Refinery needs to modify and expand the existing Alkylation Plant cooling water tower. The project would debottleneck the cooling tower so it can provide sufficient cooling capacity to the Refinery Alky, Butamer, Yard DIB, and TAME plants, and allow these units to operate up to their currently permitted levels. The project includes the replacement of two existing cooling tower cells with two new cells and the addition of two new cooling tower cells. Chevron submitted a BAAQMD Authority to Construct & Permit to Operate application. In addition, a building permit from the City of Richmond for new foundation would be required. However, a conditional Land Use Permit from the City of Richmond would not be required because the upgrade would not increase utilization or throughput of the Alky Plant. The refinery’s timing for implementation of this project is the second quarter 2006 through fourth quarter 2006. Castro Cove - The Castro Cove Project would haul dredged materials from Castro Cove out of the Chevron Richmond Refinery. The maximum truck traffic is estimated to be approximately 100 trucks (200 trips) per day. The RWQCB is currently preparing an Initial Study for this project in compliance with CEQA. A grading permit from the City of Richmond is required. No BAAQMD permit would be required. The original timing for this project was between the first quarter of 2006 and the first quarter of 2007. However, the RWQCB has just started an Initial Study, and has only completed an initial draft of the project description. Future Hydrogen Pipeline – The Chevron Richmond Refinery proposes to replace its existing Hydrogen Plant. The replacement Hydrogen Plant is expected to be constructed and operated by a third party. Other parties are considering constructing a separate hydrogen pipeline from the replacement Hydrogen Plant to other non-Chevron facilities located in the North Bay for both export and import of hydrogen. Chevron would replace the existing Hydrogen Plant regardless of whether there is a pipeline project or not. At the time of preparation of this document, there was no commitment to such a pipeline. Since no applications have been filed for this pipeline project, there is insufficient detail for a substantive environmental review of such pipeline. There are also no specific routes identified for such a pipeline. In the event a future hydrogen pipeline becomes a project, a separate environmental review would be required. For purposes of this cumulative impacts analysis, the potential for a future hydrogen pipeline is considered only at a generic level of detail. This potential pipeline project would run between the Chevron Refinery and other nearby hydrogen plant facilities (either existing or to be constructed in the future). Such a project would allow the import and export of hydrogen for regular use and/or improved reliability during maintenance or unexpected shutdown of facilities adjoining the pipeline. The new hydrogen pipeline would possibly follow the shoreline of San Pablo Bay from Rodeo to Richmond about 0.5 miles inland from the Bay. It is assumed that the construction corridor would be less than 100-feet wide and would cross a number of jurisdictions (i.e. local, regional and state) and landscapes (i.e., urban to open space). This corridor would likely parallel other local pipelines and typically follow utility corridors such as railroad right-of-ways. The terminus for this potential pipeline in the North Bay Region is unidentified at this time, as are any specific physical characteristics of the pipeline.

TABLE 5-3 PROJECTS PLANNED OR IN PROGRESS IN THE CITY OF HERCULES

Attached or Commercial or Commercial Retail Single Family Mixed Use Industrial (square or Office (square Time Period (Units) (Units) feet) feet)

2000-2004 Construction 6,447 1,245 1,058,000 210,000 2005-2008 Planned 236 2,205 380,000 546,000

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 5-6 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 5. CEQA Statutory Sections

TABLE 5-4 DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND PROJECTS CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED PROJECT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Primary Geographic Area Cumulative Development Known Projects also Category Considered Considered in Analysis Considered in Analysis

Visual Impacts County Viewsheds Future development anticipated under Future County Development Contra Costa County General Plan Projects

Air Quality Local Future development anticipated under Independent Refinery and Contra Costa County General Plan Local Rodeo Projects Regional Regional development per the Projects considered in CAP BAAQMD Clean Air Plan (CAP)

Biological Resources Local Future development anticipated under Not supplemented by lists Contra Costa County General Plan

Regional Regional Growth in accordance with Not supplemented by lists RWQCB, BCDC, CALFED planning

Energy Local Future development anticipated under Independent Refinery and Contra Costa County General Plan Local Projects Northern California California Energy Commission Not supplemented by lists Grid Statewide fuel California Energy Commission Not supplemented by lists demand projections Public Health Local Future development anticipated under Not supplemented by lists Contra Costa County General Plan (Toxic Air Contaminants and risk are considered as specific project incremental impacts) Regional Development in accordance with the Projects considered in CAP BAAQMD CAP Public Safety Local Future development anticipated under Not supplemented by lists Contra Costa County General Plan Hydrology and Water Local Future development anticipated under Independent Refinery and Quality Contra Costa County General Plan Local Projects Regional Regional development in accordance Not supplemented by lists with San Francisco Bay Basin Plan, Regional WQCB, BCDC, CALFED planning Noise Local Future development anticipated under Independent Refinery and Contra Costa County General Plan Local Projects that could affect local noise sensitive receptors Traffic and Local Future development anticipated under Not supplemented by lists Transportation Contra Costa County General Plan Regional Traffic conditions under Transportation Not supplemented by lists Agency CMP

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 5-7 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 5. CEQA Statutory Sections

TABLE 5-4 (continued) DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND PROJECTS CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED PROJECT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Primary Geographic Area Cumulative Development Known Projects also Category Considered Considered in Analysis Considered in Analysis

Utilities and Services Local Future development anticipated under Not supplemented by lists Systems Contra Costa County General Plan Regional Future development anticipated under Not supplemented by lists Contra Costa County General Plan State Northern California development Not supplemented by lists

5.2.5 Areas of Potential Cumulative Impact

A. Aesthetics, Visual Quality, Light and Glare Other projects that are planned or in progress at the Refinery are either new or expanded processing units or routine maintenance activities. These projects would be located within the existing Refinery complex, and would not expand industrial operations outside the processing, tank storage, and wastewater processing areas. Some staging and laydown areas used for construction of these foreseeable projects would be visible, and would contribute to the overall extent of disturbed, graded areas surrounding the main processing and tank storage facilities. Even so, the temporary location of new construction equipment would not significantly degrade the visual character of the area.

B. Air Quality According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. For any project that does not individually have significant operational air quality impacts, the determination of significant cumulative impact is based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with the local general plan and of the general plan with the regional air quality plan. As discussed in Impact 4.2-2, with the proposed mitigation measures the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact on air quality. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use, Plans, and Policies, the Proposed Project is consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan which in turn is consistent with the BAAQMD’s current air quality plan (2005 Ozone Strategy). As a result, the Proposed Project satisfies these conditions and therefore would not result in a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 5-8 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 5. CEQA Statutory Sections

C. Biological Resources The San Francisco Bay and Delta is a major destination for marine vessels that visit the many ports and marine terminals annually. As discussed on Impact 4.3-1, all major transport vessels are required to follow ballast water exchange or retention regulations to reduce the risks of introduction of non-indigenous species to the San Francisco Bay and Delta. With the Proposed Project, overall biological effects of ballast water associated with marine transport would be expected to be similar to current levels and the related impact of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. The same ballast water exchange or retention regulations apply to all marine terminals in the region and to all marine vessels similar to those visiting the Refinery. Given the magnitude of all of the existing ship traffic in the Bay, and the fact that the effects of the Proposed Project would be similar to current levels, the contribution of the Proposed Project to the cumulative effect would not be considerable. The related impact of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Although potential increases in pollutants from the cumulative discharges could occur, the Refinery’s contribution to these impacts would be maintained at a level that is less than cumulatively considerable by compliance with the discharge requirements of the Refinery’s NPDES permit. As discussed in Impact 4.3-2, the NPDES permitting process provides discharge standards that, when followed, limit this impact to less than significant. Although the existing condition of San Pablo Bay is considered “impaired” by certain pollutants, as discussed above the impairment is primarily due to nonpoint and historic sources, and selenium discharges from refineries are restricted by an Individual Control Strategy. Accordingly, the potential contribution of these pollutants as a result of the Proposed Project, together with other industrial development projects, is not considered a cumulatively significant biological impact. See also the discussion in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

D. Cultural Resources All potential impacts of the Proposed Project are direct impacts related to the Refinery site. Because the Proposed Project would not affect known significant cultural resources, it would not be likely to cause or contribute to significant cumulative impacts. While the incremental loss of cultural resources over time has and does occur from both natural and human-caused activities, the combined effects of the implementation of both County and State level regulations that requires identification and evaluation of cultural resources as part of environmental review effectively reduces the cumulative impacts that would occur to cultural resources.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 5-9 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 5. CEQA Statutory Sections

E. Energy The construction and the operation of the Proposed Project, in addition to other cumulative Refinery projects and other non-Refinery cumulative development in the Proposed Project area, would not result in any known cumulative impacts to energy resources. Because ConocoPhillips would continue to export electricity to PG&E and continue to use natural gas at existing levels, the increase in energy use from Proposed Project operations would not result in a significant impact to energy supply or demand. The energy required for the construction and operation of the Proposed Project would be a less-than-significant portion of the regional energy supplies, and would not place significant demands on the regional energy infrastructure. The Proposed Project does not involve construction of major new energy facilities off-site, or of facilities that would stimulate the Bay Area’s economy, resulting in a cumulative increase in energy use. The construction and the operation of the Proposed Project, in addition to other cumulative refinery projects and other non-refinery cumulative development, would not result in any known cumulative impacts to energy.

F. Geology and Soils Impacts associated with geology and soils tend to be limited to individual project sites. Therefore, they generally do not result in cumulative impacts. Such is the case with the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project includes replacing plant equipment with newer equipment that would be constructed according to more modern seismic design standards. Therefore, in combination with upgrades of other facilities in the region there would be an overall cumulative benefit in resistance to potential expansive soil and adverse effects from ground shaking.

G. Public Health Cumulative effects to public health could occur if TAC emissions from the Proposed Project were to combine with TAC emissions from one or more specific cumulative projects in the region to cause a cumulative health impact. Chapter 5 of this EIR, CEQA Statutory Sections, identifies cumulative projects that would occur in the region. They include other projects that may occur in the future at the ConocoPhillips facility, cumulative industrial projects expected to occur at other facilities in the region, and residential projects expected to occur in nearby communities.

Most of the cumulative ConocoPhillips projects at the Refinery that are identified in Section 5.2.3, Specific Projects Considered in the Cumulative Analysis, were included and evaluated previously in an EIR for the ULSD Project (ConocoPhillips, 2003). A worst case assumption would be that the maximum impact from the ConocoPhillips cumulative projects would occur at the same location as the maximum impact predicted for the Proposed Project. Under such a worst case condition, the total incremental cumulative impact cancer risk would be 0.8 in one million plus 2.9 in one million, or 3.7 in one million. Since this impact is less than the significance threshold of 10 in one million, the cumulative impact would be less than significant.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 5-10 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 5. CEQA Statutory Sections

H. Public Safety Other existing industries and planned industrial projects in the region are located too far away from the Refinery to cause potential cumulative impacts to public safety. In the cases postulated in Impact 4.8-2, all of the potentially injurious effects of fires, explosions, or from toxic gas releases from the events at the Refinery would be limited in extent to within the property fence line or near the fence line. Also, the probability of an independent accidental release occurring from another cumulative project at the same time that an accident would occur at this Proposed Project would be extremely low. However, in the event of a release due earthquake-induced simultaneous accidents at industries in Rodeo and throughout the Bay Area, the limited geographic extent of the accident effects from the Proposed Project would make that contribution not cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

I. Hydrology and Water Quality Although there are uncertainties in the amounts of increases, if any, in Proposed Project toxic metal and chemical loading, the Proposed Project’s impact would be mitigated by NPDES discharge requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The waste streams would be treated by the wastewater treatment plant prior to discharge and would have to comply with NPDES discharge limitations. The Proposed Project in combination with other projects at neighboring refineries and the non-refinery projects in the Proposed Project area that have effluent discharges and air discharges contribute controlled amounts of pollutants to the San Pablo Bay. Cumulatively, these discharges and emissions are assimilated into the surface waters.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 5-11 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 5. CEQA Statutory Sections

Under the current environment, the RWQCB determines these limits to protect the San Pablo Bay Watershed and these requirements are the most stringent regulatory mechanisms to manage waste discharges to receiving water bodies. The Refinery’s contribution is controlled by the discharge limits in the NPDES permit and eventually would be considered by the RWQCB under the regional TMDL programs. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant.

J. Land Use Plans and Policies The construction and operation of the Proposed Project, in addition to other Refinery projects and other non-refinery development, would not result in cumulative impacts to land use. Development and its cumulative effects are considered in the development of the Contra Costa County General Plan and as discussed in Impact 4.10-1, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the adopted General Plan and its applicable land use designations and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects.

Cumulative impacts related to conflicts with BAAQMD and RWQCB regional plans for air quality and water quality are analyzed in Sections 4.2, Air Quality and 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality respectively, of this EIR. The Proposed Project’s contribution to those impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable because the Proposed Project would have less-than- significant impacts.

K. Noise There are no other approved or proposed projects at the Refinery or in the vicinity of the Refinery that would lead to cumulative noise impacts along with the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s less-than-significant individual impacts would also be a less-than-significant cumulative impact.

L. Public Services As described and discussed in Section 4.12, Public Services, the construction and operation of the Proposed Project and other Refinery projects would have no impacts to public services in the vicinity of the Refinery. Therefore, the Proposed Project could not contribute to any cumulative effect resulting from other cumulative projects described in Section 5.2.3, Specific Projects Considered in the Cumulative Analysis. No impact.

M. Transportation and Traffic Cumulative analyses presented in other documents were reviewed to characterize long-range traffic operating conditions on roadways in the study area. Those documents include the Interstate 80 High

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 5-12 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 5. CEQA Statutory Sections

Occupancy Vehicle Lane Gap Closure Project Draft EA/IS (Caltrans, 2002), and the 2005 Update to the Contra Costa Congestion Management Program (CCTA, 2005).

Traffic operating conditions on County roadways would be adversely affected by future growth in population and employment in the I-80 corridor. Portions of I-80 and San Pablo Avenue, as well as area intersections (e.g., San Pablo Avenue / Willow Avenue and Willow Avenue / I-80 Westbound Ramps) are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service.

N. Utilities and Service Systems The construction and operation of the Proposed Project, and of other Refinery projects described in Section 5.2.3 would have no impact on most Utilities and Service Systems categories and less- than-significant cumulative adverse impacts on water supply and solid waste disposal systems. However, non-Refinery cumulative development could adversely affect the provision of certain utilities and services if these projects substantially increase the demand on utility facilities or services. To the extent that these future developments provide the necessary tax base or other compensation to support the provision of necessary additional public services and facilities, the potential cumulative impacts would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels.

O. Agricultural Resources As explained in Section 4.15, Agricultural Resources, the construction and operation of the Proposed Project would result in no impacts to agricultural resources or to lands designated for such use. Thus, the Proposed Project could not contribute to cumulative impacts to agricultural resources that could be caused by implementation of other Refinery and non-Refinery projects. There would be no cumulative impacts to agricultural resources as a result of the Proposed Project.

P. Mineral Resources Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in cumulative impacts to mineral resources. According to the CGS and the Contra Costa County General Plan, no mineral resource deposits have been identified in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. As explained in Section 4.16, Mineral Resources, implementation of the Proposed Project would have no impact on the availability of either known or unknown mineral resources. Considering the amount of

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 5-13 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 5. CEQA Statutory Sections

undeveloped land that is part of the Refinery property, it is possible that implementation of other Refinery projects would result in impacts to mineral resources. It is also possible that non- Refinery projects would result in mineral resource impacts. The impacts of those projects could be cumulatively considerable. However, because the Proposed Project would not impact mineral resources, it would not contribute to cumulative mineral resource impacts that might result from implementation of other Refinery and non-Refinery projects. No mitigation measures are required.

Q. Population and Housing As discussed in Impact 4.17-1, construction and operation of the Proposed Project would directly induce population growth through the creation of new temporary and long-term employment opportunities. Construction of the Proposed Project would necessitate the temporary relocation of approximately 167 workers to the Bay Area and operation of the Proposed Project would require approximately 27 new long-term workers.

R. Recreation Non-Refinery cumulative projects could adversely affect parks and recreational facilities and services if those projects were to include substantial housing components, increasing the number of residents in the County, or include other retail or cultural components that otherwise increase the demand on parks and recreational facilities by drawing recreational users to the vicinity of those parks or facilities. However, the construction and operation of the Proposed Project, as well as other cumulative Refinery projects, would have less-than-significant adverse cumulative impacts on parks and recreational facilities and services because such Refinery projects do not induce substantial population increases and they are not the type of project that increases the demand on parks and recreational facilities and services.

5.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts

CEQA Section 15126.2(d) requires that a project be considered for its potential to foster economic or population growth, requiring the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly in the surrounding area. These potential growth-inducing impacts could tax existing community services or cause construction that might cause significant environmental effects.

For the Proposed Project, during the anticipated 18 to 21-month construction period, the intermittent presence of a construction work force numbering between 480 and 834 workers at the

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 5-14 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 5. CEQA Statutory Sections

Refinery work areas would be required. Many of the construction jobs would be seasonal or would be specific to certain construction skills or activities. The construction workforce would be drawn primarily from the construction labor pool available in the Bay Area. Current Bay Area residents would be expected to commute rather than move. Therefore, that portion of the new construction jobs that is filled by current Bay Area residents would have no impact population or housing.

It is anticipated that up to 20 percent of the construction workforce would be drawn to the Bay Area on a temporary basis. Considering the possible peak workforce demand, this equates to a maximum of 167 workers at any one time. It would be necessary for the temporarily relocated workers to locate suitable housing in Contra Costa County or elsewhere in the Bay Area. The Bay Area had a housing vacancy rate of 6.8 percent in 2004, meaning that 179,588 units were unoccupied (ABAG, 2005). Given the anticipated number of temporary workers and the number of vacant housing units, it is clear that housing would generally be available within the greater Bay Area to meet the temporary increase in demand. Therefore, the impact on population and housing resulting from the temporary population increase would be less than significant.

Operation of the Proposed Project would require approximately 27 new long-term employees at the Refinery. While it is possible that none of these employees would move to the area to fill the newly created jobs, i.e., the jobs would be filled by current area residents, this analysis conservatively assumes that all 27 employees would be new residents of the area. However, even in this conservative scenario, the potential number of new residents would be insignificant given the total population of the area and the housing vacancy rate. Therefore, the impacts to population and housing resulting from the creation of approximately 27 new long-term jobs would be less than significant.

California’s and Contra Costa County’s continuing and rapid population growth has statewide direct and indirect cumulative impacts on population and housing. The effect of the Proposed Project on population growth would be indistinguishable from the general mix of factors that lead people to move to California and would not be a critical component in such decisions.

Public services (e.g., fire protection, police protection) are at or near their limit in some localities. The Proposed Project would create no new demand for those services (see Section 4.12, Public Services).

The Proposed Project would not include any new offsite infrastructure or other improvements that would lead indirectly to population growth.

5.4 Effects Found Not to Be Significant

The environmental effects of the Proposed Project are identified and discussed in detail in Chapter 4. All identified environmental effects of the Proposed Project would be less-than- significant, or less-than-significant after implementation of the identified mitigation measures.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 5-15 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 5. CEQA Statutory Sections

The following topics of analysis in this EIR were found to have no impacts:

• Public Services • Agricultural Resources • Mineral Resources

References – CEQA Statutory Sections Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), ABAG Projections 2005 – City, County and Census Tract Forecasts 2000-2030, http://data.abag.ca.gov/p2005/regional.htm, 2005.

ConocoPhillips, ULSD/Strategic Modernization Project, Final Environmental Impact Report, November 2003.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 5-16 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report CHAPTER 6 Analysis of Alternatives

6.1 General Consideration of Alternatives 6.1.1 CEQA Requirements The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project to mitigate significant impacts. The study of alternatives is rooted in CEQA’s mandate to lessen substantially or to avoid significant environmental impact, wherever feasible. This mandate can be accomplished in two ways: by developing alternatives to the project and by developing individual mitigation measures for project impacts. Thus, the examination of alternatives focuses on feasible project alternatives that could decrease the number of or lessen the significant adverse environmental impacts of the project. Despite a focus on alternatives that either eliminate significant adverse environmental effects or reduce them to a less-than-significant level, alternatives must be able to feasibly attain most of the project’s objectives, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of all of the project objectives, or would be more costly. If the CEQA Lead Agency prefers the project as proposed to any of the suggested alternatives, the agency must explain why it chooses to reject the alternatives, if they were considered in developing the proposal. If an alternative itself would reduce some impacts but cause other significant impacts, then the EIR also must assess those impacts, but in less detail than for the proposed project. CEQA also specifically requires an EIR to consider and evaluate a “no project” alternative.

The discussion of alternatives does not need to be exhaustive. The key issue is whether the reasonable range of alternatives is considered that could feasibly accomplish the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially reduce its significant environmental impacts. Thus, the EIR provides decision-makers and the public with the mitigation measures and the feasible alternatives available to reduce or avoid those substantial adverse effects that would result from the proposed project. However, an EIR need not consider alternatives for which the effects cannot be reasonably determined and for which implementation is remote and speculative.

6.1.2 Development and Selection of Alternatives

6.1.2.1 Alternatives and Project Objectives The objective of the Proposed Project is to increase production of clean-burning gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel from Heavy Gas Oil (HGO) for the California market by upgrading the Refinery’s capability to process HGO.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 6-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 6. Analysis of Alternatives

The economic and environmental benefits of the Proposed Project include:

A CEQA alternative to the project must permit feasible attainment of the proposed project’s basic objectives, even if that alternative would be more costly than the project or would not fully attain the project goals. Expected to be among the likely candidates are the various alternatives that the project sponsor investigated in the development of the project itself.

In addition to alternatives that meet project objectives, the CEQA also requires the evaluation of a “no project” alternative. The “no project” alternative includes changes and on-going activities needed to keep the Refinery in operation, such as regular major and minor maintenance activities and other reasonably foreseeable future refinery projects that would be undertaken on an ongoing schedule if the proposed project were not considered. The “no project” alternative is considered and discussed in Section 6.2.1.

CEQA Guidelines provide that alternative locations for the proposed project may be considered if feasible. Section 6.2.3 presents a discussion of an alternative site for the Proposed Project.

Often, “reduced project” alternatives are developed to reduce significant adverse project impacts that are proportional to the size of the project. For the Proposed Project, significant project impacts relate to specific components, rather than to the scale of the project. Thus, the alternatives analysis attempts to identify and evaluate scenarios under which specific combinations of project

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 6-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 6. Analysis of Alternatives

components and schedules are formulated to eliminate specific impacts that would otherwise occur with the Proposed Project.

6.1.2.2 ConocoPhillips Candidate Scenarios CEQA Guidelines require a brief explanation of alternatives that were considered but rejected during the scoping process. This section presents the two candidate scenarios investigated by ConocoPhillips while developing the Proposed Project. These two candidates were ultimately rejected by ConocoPhillips for the reason or reasons stated. a) Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit Alternative ConocoPhillips evaluated construction of a new Fluid Catalytic Cracker (FCC). An FCC unit would serve the same function as the expanded Unicracking Unit (Unit 240) proposed in the Proposed Project. ConocoPhillips rejected this FCC alternative. This alternative would have achieved all of the Proposed Project objectives, but would have had more environmental issues to consider, i.e., more substantial air quality impacts, increased adverse water quality discharges, increased traffic impacts and higher energy usage.

This proposed alternative would have included a new 23,000 barrels per day (bbl/day) FCC with an associated gasoline fractionation plant, a 23,000 bbl/day FCC Feed Hydrotreater, a 5,000 bbl/day Sulfuric Acid Alkylation Plant, and a 250 long ton/day Sulfuric Acid plant that would regenerate spent acid and process additional Refinery sulfur load. This alternative would also require constructing a new Hydrogen Plant to provide additional hydrogen similar to the Proposed Project. Incorporated into this alternative would be various upgrades for managing sulfur plant tail gas, stripping sour water, and regenerating amine.

An FCC process requires substantially more processing units, has a greater number of new air pollutant emission sources and higher air emissions than the Proposed Project. Specifically, an

FCC would emit more particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) from the catalytic regeneration process and there may also be more potential for odors from the FCC process than from the Proposed Project.

The development of this alternative would have required the demolition of facilities located within the footprint of the FCC and its supporting additions. Due to the greater number of units and new equipment required for this alternative, demolition and construction would have taken longer and required a larger construction work force than would the Proposed Project. Operation of the FCC would have required a larger permanent work force and more maintenance than the Proposed Project. Consequently, this alternative would have produced more traffic for a longer period of time, and increased air emissions during construction. During operation, there would have also been more truck traffic from additional catalyst required by the FCC. The sulfuric acid plant could have required product transport by additional railcars. Depending on concentration, this acid may result in additional hazardous material used in the process, storage, and transport.

The FCC process would have also required more process water. More steam and electrical power would also have been required to operate an FCC than a Unicracker.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 6-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 6. Analysis of Alternatives

The FCC alternative was rejected by ConocoPhillips because of the potential for greater environmental impacts and potentially greater costs. b) Heavy Gas Oil Hydrotreater Alternative ConocoPhillips considered an alternative project to the Proposed Project to produce a lower sulfur HGO product that would be sold to a wider market of refineries. This lower sulfur HGO product could be used as a low sulfur heavy feed stock that could be processed by refineries with limited sulfur removal capability. However, with this alternative, ConocoPhillips would not increase production of their clean gasoline or diesel fuel. Therefore, ConocoPhillips rejected this alternative because it did not meet their stated objectives for the Proposed Project.

Under this alternative, ConocoPhillips would have constructed a new 23,000 bbl/day HGO Hydrotreater with associated stripper and product fractionator. There would have been no need to expand the capacity of the existing Unicracker or the downstream processes. However, some of the same components and improvements of the Proposed Project would have been included. This alternative would still have required the construction of a new Hydrogen Plant to provide the additional hydrogen similar to the Proposed Project. As a result the Unit 240 B-1 boiler could be shut down, as with the Proposed Project. This alternative would still have required a new sulfur recovery unit to process the additional sulfur. Various upgrades would have been incorporated into this alternative project for managing sulfur plant tail gas, stripping sour water, and regenerating amine.

The low sulfur heavy feedstock that would have been produced by this alternative would have been shipped offsite by barge. Therefore, reductions in marine shipments of HGO would not occur, in contrast to the reductions that would occur under the Proposed Project. This project would have minimally reduced the amount of construction time, energy, traffic, and air emissions that the Proposed Project requires. Energy and utility needs would have been similar. Hazardous materials and water quality issues would have been similar.

6.2 Alternatives to the Project

As noted in Section 6.1.1, CEQA Requirements, above, the study of alternatives is rooted in CEQA’s mandate to lessen substantially or to avoid significant environmental impact, wherever feasible. However, the Proposed Project has only impacts that are less than significant, and has no significant adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, one of the primary reasons to examine alternatives is not present in this case. Regardless, Sections 6.2.1 through 6.2.3 that follow consider three alternatives to the Proposed Project.

6.2.1 No Project Alternative The “No Project” alternative would consist of the existing ConocoPhillips Refinery configuration and operation, together with on-going maintenance activities and other projects planned or currently underway. The Refinery’s regular maintenance turnarounds would continue to occur. Thus, the No Project alternative includes those changes, as well as the on-going activities needed

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 6-4 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 6. Analysis of Alternatives

to keep the Refinery in operation into the future. Under the No Project alternative, ConocoPhillips could not achieve any of its project objectives. With the No Project alternative, rather than process the HGO at the Refinery, ConocoPhillips would continue to export HGO to the high- sulfur fuel oil and fluidized catalytic cracking feed markets; other refineries, local or elsewhere in California, would continue to produce products from ConocoPhillips exported HGO product. Note that the air emissions from that processing, which should be similar to the emissions that would occur under the Proposed Project, are not considered in this EIR. The average export of HGO since the Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) unit began operation requires approximately 145 marine barge trips per year and 5 marine vessel trips per year. No reduction in marine transport would occur under this No Project alternative.

Continued export of HGO would also mean that the Refinery would forego the substantive increases in production of gasoline and ULSD fuels that the Proposed Project would provide. This, in turn could reduce the amount of clean fuels available in the local market.

Under the No Project alternative there would be no increase in hydrogen production at the Refinery and shut down of the Unit 240 B-1 boiler could not occur because ConocoPhillips would still need this source of steam. The proposed Hydrogen Plant would not be developed and the future supply of excess hydrogen, for other potential uses, would be foregone.

6.2.2 Reduced-Project Reduced-project alternatives are usually considered as one means to potentially reduce the adverse effects of a project on the environment. A reduced-project alternative considers components of the Proposed Project that could potentially be eliminated or reduced from the full Proposed Project scope. As is discussed below, a Reduced-Project generally would not meet several of the objectives of the Proposed Project.

Reduced HGO Production Only One Reduced-Project alternative that was evaluated focused only on reducing of the quantity of HGO to be processed. Under this Reduced-HGO alternative, a new high-pressure reactor train would have to be added to the Unicracker Unit in order to process HGO. This Reduced-HGO alternative would not involve the shutdown of the Unit 240 B-1 boiler. ConocoPhillips believes it would be impractical to design a process with a capacity less than the full quantity of HGO produced on site because there is not enough capacity for hydrogen production and for sulfur recovery from the existing sulfur plant to enable the Refinery to process even a portion of the HGO. Therefore, the support components required for the Proposed Project, including a new Hydrogen Plant and new Sulfur Plant improvements, would still be needed to meet most Reduced-Project goals. Consequently, construction costs for a Reduced-HGO alternative were estimated to be similar to the costs of the Proposed Project, while the resulting production of clean fuels under the Reduced-HGO alternative would be less than under the Proposed Project. Furthermore, the Reduced-HGO alternative would have essentially similar less-than-significant environmental impacts as the Proposed Project including noise and traffic impacts, though demands on energy, water supply and other utilities would be somewhat reduced compared to the

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 6-5 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 6. Analysis of Alternatives

Proposed Project. This Reduced-HGO alternative would not achieve the full Proposed Project benefit of substantively reducing the marine traffic (for export of HGO by barge) because some HGO would still be required to be shipped offsite to other refineries, whether local, elsewhere within California or in other states. In addition, the air emissions from processing HGO at another refinery should be similar to the emissions from processing HGO at the Refinery. These air emissions and their effects on air quality at the other refinery are not considered in this EIR.

Reduced Hydrogen Plant Only Another potential reduced project would be to construct a smaller Hydrogen Plant. Since the proposed Hydrogen Plant is currently oversized for the Proposed Project needs, a smaller unit could be constructed. Downsizing the Hydrogen Plant could mean that there would be no excess hydrogen available for potential future customers, which would not meet one of the stated goals of the Proposed Project. A smaller Hydrogen Plant would still require a similar construction period as the plant proposed in the Proposed Project and would have similar traffic and transportation issues as well as many of the same environmental issues as the Proposed Project. With a reduced Hydrogen Plant the Unit 240 B-1 boiler may not be able to be shutdown as a result of less steam being generated. Depending on the ability to shut down the Unit 240 B-1 boiler, air emissions could potentially be reduced under this Reduced Hydrogen Plant alternative but at some minimum Hydrogen Plant size, the B-1 boiler could not be shut down, so the resulting total air emissions could be the same or more than under the Proposed Project.

Combined Reduced-Project It may be possible to specify an alternative reduced-project configuration that, by reducing the capacity of both the HGO and new Hydrogen Plant to some level, without substantial further engineering design and study it is not known if this would be technically feasible or economically viable. Furthermore, it is likely that with such a Reduced Project alternative the stated project goals of shutting down the Unit 240 B-1 boiler and reducing barge traffic would not be achievable and therefore, the combined Reduced-Project alternative could have the potential to increase environmental impacts.

6.2.3 Project at an Alternate Site Consideration of an “alternate site” alternative is commonly included among the reasonable range of alternatives under CEQA. Due to the nature of the Proposed Project, constructing the Proposed Project at an alternate site would either require construction of the Proposed Project facilities at another operating refinery, or would require construction of an entire new refinery, which would be a greatly larger sized project than the Proposed Project and would result in new environmental impacts related to that site. The Proposed Project focuses development only within the active area of the existing Refinery, and would not result in development in new or previously undisturbed areas within the existing Refinery footprint. For the purpose of reducing environmental impacts, it is clearly infeasible to consider an alternative location for the Proposed Project as a whole, since as a series of components and modifications to existing components, such a project alternative cannot stand on its own. Furthermore, constructing the Proposed Project at another location only

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 6-6 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 6. Analysis of Alternatives

moves the project-related impacts to another location and does not mitigate them. This alternative is considered to be infeasible and is not considered further.

6.2.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative Identification of an environmentally superior alternative is required under CEQA. The purpose of identifying such an alternative is to examine ways to eliminate or substantially reduce significant adverse impacts to lower levels of significance. As presented in Chapter 4 of this EIR, all identified impacts of the Proposed Project are either less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant with the application of proposed mitigation measures. Since no significant impacts remain, only a marginal reduction in impact would be achieved by the Environmentally Superior Alternative.

As discussed in Section 6.2.2, Reduced-Project, reductions in the size of the major Proposed Project components, such as the HGO Processing or the new Hydrogen Plant, would generally fail to meet the objectives of the Proposed Project and would have many of the same environmental impacts as the Proposed Project. Any marginal size reduction in the new Hydrogen Plant would tend lessen some impacts of the Proposed Project1, for example in air quality. For the proposes of this analysis, it would be reasonable to consider an alternative to reduce the capacity of the new Hydrogen Plant to a size that would meet only the needs of the Refinery, without any excess capacity for the California market. While this alternative would not meet all of the Proposed Project’s objectives, this alternative would be marginally environmentally superior to the Proposed Project because identified environmental impacts would be smaller than those that would occur with the Proposed Project.

1 Although all impacts in the EIR are either less than significant or less than significant after application of proposed mitigation measures.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 6-7 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report CHAPTER 7 Report Preparation

7.1 Report Authors 7.1.1 Lead Agency

Contra Costa County Community Development Department Will Nelson, Project Planner

7.1.2 Consultants

Environmental Science Associates Doug Cover Project Director Chuck Bennett Project Manager, Project Description, Alternatives, Cumulative Impacts Tim Morgan Deputy Project Manager, Project Description, Alternatives, Cumulative Impacts, Mineral Resources Cynthia Wren Aesthetics and Light Glare, Cultural Resources, Energy, Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, Agriculture, Employment, Population and Housing Sandra Hamlat Land Use, Public Services, Parks and Recreation Eric Schniewind Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality Michael Ratte Air Quality Matt Fagundes Air Quality Chris Sanchez Noise Gus JaFolla Word Processing and Report Production Mark Fogiel Biological Resources Jack Hutchison Traffic and Transportation Ron Teitel Graphics Robert Vranka, Ph.D. Public Health, Public Safety

IES Dave Powell – Senior Engineer, Project Description, Public Safety, Public Health

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 7-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 7. Report Preparation

7.2 Agencies and Organizations Contacted

The Community Development Department contacted the following public agencies and community organizations during the preparation of this Draft EIR:

Bay Area Air Quality Management District Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water California Air Resources Board Conservation District California Department of Conservation Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency California Department of Fish and Game, Contra Costa County Community Development Region II and III Department, Comprehensive Planning Division California Energy Commission Contra Costa County Community Development California Highway Patrol Department, Transportation Planning California Historical Resources Division Information System Crockett Improvement Association California State Clearinghouse Crockett Community Foundation City of Benicia California Department of Toxic and Substances City of Hercules Control City of Martinez East Bay Municipal Utility District City of Pinole East Bay Regional Park District City of Richmond John Swett Unified School District City of Vallejo Native American Heritage Commission Caltrans, Transportation Planning Division National Marine Fisheries Service Carquinez Coalition Port Costa Town Council Community for Better Environment Regional Water Quality Control Board – Contra Costa County Biologist – San Francisco Bay Region Monk & Associates Rodeo Citizen Association Contra Costa County Rodeo-Hercules Fire Department Building Inspection Department Rodeo Improvement Association Contra Costa County Building and Rodeo Library Construction Trades Council Rodeo Municipal Advisory Council Contra Costa County Geologist – Darwin Myers Rodeo Sanitary District Contra Costa County Health Services San Francisco Bay Conservation and Department, Environmental Health Division Development Commission Contra Costa County Health Services State Lands Commission, Executive Office Department, Hazardous Material Division State Water Resources Control Board Contra Costa County Public Works (SWRCB) Department, Engineering Services Division Solano County Contra Costa County Public Works US Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco Department, Traffic Division Engineering Bay District Contra Costa County Public Works US Fish and Wildlife Service Department, Special Districts Division West Contra Costa Health Care District Contra Costa County Sheriff Office, West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Administration and Community Services Committee

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 7-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report

CHAPTER 8 Glossary and Acronyms

8.1 Glossary

A number of technical terms are used in the refining industry and at the ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery to describe the operations and equipment that are in use there. This glossary includes selected definitions and in some cases expanded descriptions of these terms that allow the reader of this document who is unfamiliar with the refining industry to understand the basic operations within a Refinery. In addition, these expanded descriptions also present how these processes specifically take place at the Refinery.

Alkylation A process which chemically combines LPG's (light olefin hydrocarbons and isobutene), using low temperature and sulfuric acid as a catalyst, to make a gasoline blending component known as alkylate.

API Separator An oil/water separator designed per American Petroleum Institute (API) standards for above and below ground installations.

Barrel In the petroleum industry, a volume of 42 gallons.

Blending The blending process involves numerous streams from storage tanks and process vessels that are mixed (blended) into finished products. The final products contain the correct chemical and physical properties specified for each fuel.

Catalyst In classical chemistry terms, a catalyst promotes a chemical reaction without itself being consumed in the reaction. A catalyst accelerates a chemical reaction so it will proceed at a reasonable rate at lower temperatures and pressures than the reaction would without a catalyst. Typically, refinery catalysts are round or cylindrical in shape and are materials called zealots, or alumna, or are silica or elemental carbon, called coke. These catalysts deteriorate over time and require replacement or regeneration when their activity drops below a specified level.

Caustic The caustic used in most proposed processes is sodium hydroxide (NaOH).

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 8-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 8. Glossary and Acronyms

Claus Sulfur In a Claus Sulfur Recovery Unit, the H2S-containing acid gases pass Recovery through a high temperature reaction furnace thermal conversion section where H2S is burned with a carefully controlled amount of air and oxygen to yield the optimum ratio of H2S to sulfur dioxide (SO2) for conversion to elemental sulfur.

CO Carbon monoxide (CO), a toxic gas generated by incomplete combustion. CO is a criteria air pollutant.

Cracking Cracking is used to produce more gasoline from each barrel of crude oil than naturally exists. The heavier cuts or fractions from the crude distillation unit and the gas oils that are produced as feedstocks consist of large, heavy hydrocarbon molecules, which are too large to have the desired properties. However, when hydrocarbons are heated to about 900°F they begin to break, or crack, into smaller molecules. Cracking converts some of the larger molecules of heavy oils into shorter-chained molecules, such as naphthenes, and ring-shaped molecules, such as aromatics. Both naphthenes and aromatics are desirable components of gasoline.

Criteria Air An air pollutant for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined Pollutant and for which an ambient air quality standard has been set. Examples include: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and PM10 and PM2.5.

Crude oil Crude oil is the term used for the naturally occurring petroleum mixtures that are pumped from wells and then delivered to the refinery by ship, barge, or pipeline. Crude oil is the basic petroleum feedstock that is processed at the refinery. Crude oil contains many different hydrocarbon molecules, usually with a wide range of boiling points, representing many potential products such as propane, butane, gasoline, jet fuel, diesel oil, and fuel oil. Because crude oil is a natural product, there is a wide variation in the characteristics of a crude depending mostly on the wells from which it is obtained.

Crude oils usually contain some sulfur; crudes that contain low percentages of sulfur, 0.5% or less, are called “sweet” crudes, while crudes that contain high percentages of sulfur, 2.5% or more, are called “sour” crudes. Crudes with sulfur percentages in between are called “intermediate”. Crude oils also may contain other organic compounds that include nitrogen and metals, along with inorganic salts and water, again, depending on the origin of the crude.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 8-2 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 8. Glossary and Acronyms

Crude oil (cont.) Crude oil consists mainly of hydrocarbons, chemical compounds made up of hydrogen and carbon atoms that are combined into molecules of different sizes, shapes, and configurations. The smallest hydrocarbon molecules, with only a few atoms of hydrogen and carbon, such as methane, ethane, propane and butane, are gases under normal conditions, while somewhat larger hydrocarbon molecules, such as gasoline and diesel, are liquids and very large hydrocarbon molecules, such as asphalt and tar, are solids. These basic physical properties result mainly from the number of carbon atoms in each compound and give the crude the name “light” or “heavy”, depending on the fractions of lighter and heavier hydrocarbons in the crude oil.

DNL The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24- hour period, and which accounts for the greater sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise by weighting noise levels at night (“penalizing” nighttime noises). Noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is weighted (penalized) by adding 10 dBA to take into account the greater annoyance of nighttime noises.

Deisobutanizer Separates normal butane and heavier hydrocarbons from isobutane and lighter hydrocarbons.

Distillation The process of separating each of the chemical hydrocarbon compounds (fractions) in the crude oil mixture by heating the mixture.

Feedstock The term “feedstock” (also called a “feed”) is commonly used to denote the fluid material that is fed into a refinery process unit. For example, crude oil is a feedstock for the crude distillation unit. In a similar vein, the term “stream” refers to the feedstock and also can refer to the output of the process.

Flare System Upsets can occur in refinery processes. When such upsets occur, they can create excess pressure in a pipe, vessel or process unit. To make the refinery operationally safe, such over pressurization is released into a system of pipes that collect the material and direct it to the refinery flare gas recovery system. This system consists of a flare gas compressor and two flares which are tall stacks where these excess gases are burned prior to release into the atmosphere. Flares have been developed so that the light created when hydrocarbons burn is only slightly visible or not visible, however, some larger upsets can result in flaring that is quite visible.

Fraction A generic name for the groups of hydrocarbon compounds that boil between any two temperatures. Examples of crude oil fractions, in order of the increasing number of carbon atoms, are: light ends; butanes; gasoline; naphtha; kerosene; gas oil; and residue.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 8-3 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 8. Glossary and Acronyms

Fractionation Fractionation is a special form of distillation where several output streams of similar boiling point ranges are separated from hydrocarbon mixtures. In the fractionation process, the feedstock is introduced into the fractionation column and vaporized by heating. As the hydrocarbon vapors rise, they reach progressively cooler regions of the column and they eventually condense to liquids on horizontal trays inside the column. Each hydrocarbon fraction, or “cut”, is collected from a tray positioned at the height (and temperature) in the column where that particular vapor condenses into a liquid. Each cut condenses within a specific temperature range, and therefore at a specific height in the column. Each of the cuts from the column is then sent to storage tanks or is sent to other units for further processing.

At the refinery, fractionation towers are parts of many of the refinery process units, and are used to separate the output streams for further processing or handling.

Furnaces Furnaces provide the heat sources needed in the refinery to carry out the distillation or fractionation processes and to provide the energy for cracking large hydrocarbon molecules, driving catalytic reactions to form desirable hydrocarbons, or eliminating undesirable compounds from feed streams.

At the refinery, furnaces are integral parts of most refinery processes. Reforming and cracking depend on heat supplied by the furnaces, and fractionation processes rely on furnaces for direct heating of the feedstocks.

Furnaces burn fuel gas, a byproduct of the refining process, or natural gas purchased from outside sources.

Gas Oil Gas Oil is a material that has been processed in a refinery and is one of the heavier fractions resulting from the initial distillation and separation of crude oil.

Hydrocarbons Molecules made up primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms.

Methane is the simplest of the hydrocarbons, with one carbon atom and 4 hydrogen atoms. When one of methane’s hydrogen atoms is replaced by a second carbon atom and three more hydrogen atoms, the new compound is called ethane. The molecular formula for ethane is C2H6. If another hydrogen atom is replaced by a third carbon atom and three more hydrogen atoms, the chemical compound formed is propane. Adding a fourth carbon atom and three more hydrogen atoms to the chain forms butane.

Methane, ethane, propane and butane are all gases at room temperature and normal atmospheric pressure. All may act as fuels. Methane (the principal component of natural gas) and propane are currently used as alternative fuels for vehicles.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 8-4 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 8. Glossary and Acronyms

Hydrocarbons These compounds are members of the alkane series—a family of (cont.) hydrocarbons having the general molecular formula CnH2n+2. In this formula, “n” stands for the number of carbon atoms. The formula states that the number of hydrogen atoms in any alkane is two times the number of carbon atoms, plus two. For example, propane has three carbon atoms. Therefore, propane has (2 x 3) + 2 hydrogen atoms. Its molecular formula is C3H8.

An alkane in organic chemistry is a saturated hydrocarbon without carbon rings; that is, an acyclic hydrocarbon in which the molecule has the maximum possible number of hydrogen atoms and so has no double bonds. Alkanes are also often known as paraffins, especially the high molecular weight alkane hydrocarbons for which n is greater than about 20.

Hydrogen Hydrogen gas is generated in several ways in a refinery. Hydrogen is Production and produced primarily in a Catalytic Reformer, where natural gas is reacted Use with steam to release hydrogen gas. Hydrogen gas also is released from liquid hydrocarbons as a part of the processes that occur in the various process reformers (see Reforming, below). Hydrogen also can be recovered from streams of hydrogen-rich gas that occur in other process units, such as the Hydrofining Units.

Large amounts of hydrogen are consumed in the refinery for changing the configuration of the chemical bonds in some molecules or in processes that convert sulfur-containing and nitrogen-containing compounds to gases that can be separated easily from the hydrocarbon molecules. These processes include Hydrocracking and Hydrofining.

Hydrotreater Removes sulfur, as H2S, and nitrogen from gas oils. Also reduces the olefin and sulfur content of heart-cut gasoline fractions.

Long Ton A long ton is 2,240 pounds or approximately 1,016 kilograms.

LPG Liquefied petroleum gas - light olefinic hydrocarbons.

Mercaptan An odorous hydrocarbon compound that contains sulfur.

Naphtha Naphtha is an intermediate distillation stream that boils in the same boiling range as gasoline. Naphtha is a colorless or reddish to brown colored, mobile liquid with an aromatic odor. It is a mixture of comprised of varying percentages of aromatic hydrocarbons including toluene, xylene, benzene, and cumene. The benzene content is higher in the coal tar naphthas with low boiling points.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 8-5 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 8. Glossary and Acronyms

Nitrogen Oxides A general term pertaining to compounds of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen NOX dioxide (NO2), and other oxides of nitrogen. Nitrogen oxides are typically created during combustion processes, and are major contributors to smog formation and acid deposition. NO2 is a criteria air pollutant and may result in numerous adverse health effects.

Octane (motor A measure of fuel performance in an internal combustion engine resulting fuel rating) from the tendency of that fuel to ignite spontaneously under compression. Heptane, a hydrocarbon with seven carbon atoms, ignites spontaneously at low compression ratios, while octane, a hydrocarbon with eight carbon atoms, can be compressed to high ratios without igniting spontaneously. As the percentage of octane in a mixture with heptane is increased, the compression ratio that the fuel mixture will reach before igniting spontaneously also is increased. A 89-octane fuel would have the same spontaneous ignition under compression as a mixture of 89% octane and 11% heptane. That mixture spontaneously ignites at a specific compression ratio, and so can only be used in engines that operate at or below that compression ratio. In practice, motor gasoline is made of many combinations of hydrocarbons, but their tendency to ignite spontaneously under compression is referenced to the octane-to-heptane mixture standard.

Purification It is necessary to purify fractions of gasoline and diesel prior to processing or blending them into finished products by removing impurities. Purification includes the removal of undesirable components such as hydrogen sulfide, sulfur, and nitrogen compounds. Purification is accomplished in units called hydrotreaters, where a mixture of hydrocarbons and hydrogen are heated together and then fed to a reaction chamber containing a catalyst.

Refinery Fuel Refinery fuel gas is defined at 40 CFR 60.101. Fuel gas means any gas Gas which is generated at a petroleum refinery and which is combusted. Fuel gas also includes natural gas when the natural gas is combined and combusted in any proportion with a gas generated at a refinery. Fuel gas does not include gases generated by catalytic cracking unit catalyst regerators and fluid coking burners.

Reforming Reforming modifies the chemical structure of the feedstock hydrocarbons into more valuable hydrocarbon compounds. Reformers use a special catalyst to create aromatics and other cyclical hydrocarbon molecules from naphthenes in the streams fed into the reformer. The aromatics and other cyclical hydrocarbons perform better in cars and have higher economic value than the straight-chain molecules from which they are made. As a byproduct, reformers also make hydrogen gas.

Selective A NOx emission control system. Catalytic Reduction, SCR

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 8-6 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 8. Glossary and Acronyms

Sour Water Sour water is water in which ammonia and sulfur-bearing compounds are dissolved. It has a very sour, strong aroma.

Subsidence A temperature inversion from a pressure induced warming of a layer of Inversion subsiding air that is enhanced by vertical mixing in the air layer below the inversion.

Sulfur Recovery In a Sulfur Recovery Unit (SRU), hydrogen sulfide is absorbed from Unit, SRU refinery gases to reduce their sulfur content so that they can be burned for heating refinery intermediate streams. The hydrogen sulfide is desorbed by steam heating the solution and the hydrogen sulfide is burned to form sulfur oxides which are absorbed and converted to molten sulfur using the Claus process. The Sulfur Recovery Unit and the processes taking place inside its equipment are very common and are found in almost all refineries.

SynGas SynGas is short for “synthesis gas” which in its simplest form is a mixture of Carbon Monoxide and Hydrogen. To make synthesis gas, water (steam) and natural gas (methane) are reacted over a nickel catalyst bed to make a Hydrogen / Carbon Monoxide mixture. Below is the simple chemical equation.

H2O + CH4 => CO + 3H2

The synthesis gas is then processed further to make pure H2, pure CO and a SynGas mix depending on customer needs.

Tanks In a refinery, large tanks are used to store incoming petroleum raw materials such as crude oil, intermediate refinery products such as gas oil, and final products that can be blended for consumer products such as gasoline. All raw materials and products are pumped through pipelines that connect the tanks, refinery process units and refinery shipping terminals. The tanks typically are equipped with a special floating roof to reduce the evaporation of raw hydrocarbons into the air.

Unicracker The Unicracker Complex processes gas oils into gasoline, diesel, and jet Complex fuel. The Refinery processes that make up the Unicracker Complex include the Unicracker and Hydrogen Plant (Unit 240), Catalytic Reformer (Unit 244), and UNISAR1 Hydrotreating Unit (Unit 248).

The Unicracker uses heat, hydrogen, and a catalyst to convert gas oils into gasoline blendstocks and distillate (jet fuel and diesel) blendstocks. The catalytic reformer can increase the octane rating of the naphtha feed by up to 30 octane number units. The UNISAR (Unit 248) refines the burning characteristics of jet fuel distillate stock produced by the Unicracker to reduce exhaust smoke.

1 UNISAR is a trade name and not an acronym.

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 8-7 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 8. Glossary and Acronyms

Volatile Organic Carbon-containing compounds that evaporate into the air (with a few Compounds exceptions). Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) contribute to the formation of smog and/or may themselves be toxic. VOCs often have an odor. Examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints.

Wastewater Equipment in which the water wastes from the refining process are treated Treatment and monitored to insure that the refinery discharge meets the regulations of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB), the responsible state agency. The wastewater treatment plant also treats runoff from process areas.

8.2 Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This EIR ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACM Asbestos Containing Materials API American Petroleum Institute ATC Authority to Construct Permit, from the BAAMD AVO Average Vehicle Occupancy BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BACT Best Available Control Technology bbl Barrel BCDC Bay Conservation and Development Commission bgs Below ground surface BLEVE Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion BMP Best Management Practice Btu British Thermal Unit CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standard CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy CARB California Air Resources Board CARE Community Air Risk Evaluation CBC California Building Code CCR California Code of Regulations CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 8-8 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 8. Glossary and Acronyms

CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology CEC California Energy Commission CGS California Geological Survey CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFEP Clean Fuels Expansion Project (Proposed Project) CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board CMP Congestion Management Plan CNDDB California National Diversity Data Base CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO Carbon Monoxide CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CTR California Toxics Rule CWA Clean Water Act DAF Dissolved Air Flotation dB decibels dBA A-weighted decibels DGA Diglycolamine DNL Day-Night Noise Level DOE Department of Energy DPM Diesel Particulate Matter DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EIR Environmental Impact Report ERCs Emission Reduction Credits ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FMP Flare Minimization Plan g/bhp-hr Grams per brake horsepower-hour HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants HAZCOM Hazard Communication HAZOP Hazard and Operability Study HAZWOPER Hazardous Waste Operations

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 8-9 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 8. Glossary and Acronyms

HD 2007 Heavy Diesel 2007 HGO Heavy Gas Oil HOV High-Occupancy Vehicle hp Horsepower HPRT High Pressure Reactor Train Hz Hertz

H2S Hydrogen Sulfide IES Illuminating Engineering Society ISTEA International Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 I-80 Interstate 80 JSUSD John Swett Unified School District kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt hour kW/m2 Kilowatt per square meter LDAR Leak Detection And Reporting Program LGO Light Gas Oil LN2 Liquid Nitrogen LOS Level of Service LOX Liquid Oxygen LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas - (light hydrocarbons) LTA Land Treatment Act LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy MACT Maximum Average Control Technology MCE Maximum Credible Earthquake MDEA methyldiethanolamine MEIR Maximum Exposed Individual Residence MEIW Maximum Exposed Individual Worker MGD Million Gallons per Day MOC Management of Change MPOs Metropolitan Planning Organizations MRZ Mineral Resources Zone MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets MSL Mean Sea Level MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 8-10 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 8. Glossary and Acronyms

MW Megawatt, a million Watts MWh Megawatt hour NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NESHAPs National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPOC Non-Precursor Organic Compounds NSPS New Source Performance Standards NTR National Toxics Rules OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Federal) PACT Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment P&ID Piping and Instrumentation Diagram Pb Lead PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric Company PM Particulate Matter PMI Point of Maximum Impact

PM10 PM less than 10 microns in size

PM2.5 PM less than 2.5 microns in size POC Precursor Organic Compounds ppb Parts per billion ppm Parts per million ppmw Parts Per Million by Weight PRC Public Resources Code PSA Pressure Swing Adsorption PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration psi Pounds per square inch psia Pounds per square inch, absolute PSM Process Safety Management PTO Permit to Operate, from the BAAQMD RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 8-11 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 8. Glossary and Acronyms

RHFD Rodeo-Hercules Fire District RMP Risk Management Plan or Regional Monitoring Program ROG Reactive Organic Gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SCF Standard Cubic Feet SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction SIP State Implementation Plan SLC State Lands Commission SMARA California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act SMR Steam Methane Reformer

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SPCC Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Control Plan SRP Selenium Removal Plant SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element SRU Sulfur Recovery Unit SR-4 State Route 4 SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TAC Toxic Air Contaminants TBACT Best Available Control Technology for Toxics TGTU Tail Gas Treating Unit TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads TVP True Vapor Pressure UBC Uniform Building Code ULL Urban Limit Line ULSD Ultra-Low-Sulfur Diesel US DOT U.S. Department of Transportation US EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Service UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VCE Vapor Cloud Explosion VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 8-12 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report 8. Glossary and Acronyms

WAR Wet Air Regeneration WCCSD West Contra Costa Sanitary District WestCAT West Contra Costa County Transit WHR California Wildlife Habitat Relations System WSA Water Supply Assessment ZnO Zinc Oxide ZEV Zero Emission Vehicle

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project 8-13 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report APPENDIX A Biological Resource Information

ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery Clean Fuels Expansion Project A-1 November 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report