Mitigated Negative Declaration for Chevron Tank Replacements

Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for Chevron Tank Replacements

Prepared By: City of Richmond 450 Civic Center Plaza Richmond, California 94804

Contact: Lamont Thompson, Senior Planner (510) 620-6947

Contents

1.0 Summary...... 1

2.0 Environmental Checklist...... 9 2.1 Introduction ...... 9 2.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected...... 9 2.3 Determination ...... 10 2.4 Environmental Checklist and Discussion ...... 11 I. AESTHETICS...... 11 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES...... 15 III. AIR QUALITY...... 16 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES...... 26 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES...... 30 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...... 32 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS...... 36 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS...... 37 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY...... 40 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING ...... 43 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES...... 44 XII. NOISE ...... 45 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING...... 47 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES...... 48 XV. RECREATION...... 50 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC...... 52 XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS...... 55 XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE...... 57

3.0 Reference...... 67

List of Appendices

Appendix A Air Emissions Calculations Appendix B List of Projects Considered in Cumulative Impacts Analysis Appendix C Technical Memo on HRA for 12 Tanks Appendix D Biological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Firewater Tank Appendix E WSA Traffic Impact Analysis

List of Tables

Table 1-1 Summary of Chevron Richmond Refinery Replacement and New Tanks ...... 6 Table 1-2 Tank Construction Schedule in Months ...... 7 Table 2-1 BAAQMD CEQA Significance Thresholds for Individual Projects Adopted June 2, 2010...... 18 Table 2-2 Construction/Demolition Emissions and New Tanks...... 19 Table 2-3 Operations Emissions Associated with the Replacement and New Tanks ...... 21 Table 2-4 Federal, State, and CNPS-Listed Special-Status Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project ...... 27 Table 2-5 Federal and State Special-Status Animal Species with the Potential to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project ...... 27 Table 2-6 Summary of Chevron Richmond Refinery Project Construction Related Vehicle Trips...... 53

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 New Tank Locations ...... 8 Figure 2-1 Viewpoint Locations for Chevron Tank Simulations ...... 13 Figure 2-2 Crest Avenue Viewpoint – Existing Conditions...... 14 Figure 2-3 Crest Avenue Viewpoint – Stimulation with Labels ...... 14 Figure 2-4 Buena Vista Avenue Viewpoint – Existing Conditions ...... 14 Figure 2-5 Buena Vista Avenue Viewpoint – Simulation with Labels ...... 14 Figure 2-6 Richmond San Rafael Bridge Viewpoint – Existing Conditions ...... 15 Figure 2-7 Richmond San Rafael Bridge Viewpoint – Simulation ...... 15

1.0 Summary

Description of Proposed Action

The Chevron Richmond Refinery (Refinery) is a petroleum refinery in Richmond, California that currently operates approximately 300 tanks to handle various raw materials, intermediates, by-products, and final petroleum products. The aggregate capacity of all petroleum tanks is approximately 16,000,000 barrels. In addition there are numerous other tanks, generally smaller in size, used for storage of various treatment chemicals, wastewater, firewater, and other water streams.

In general, Refinery tanks are designed and maintained to Chevron and industry consensus standards such as those from the American Petroleum Institute, 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. Such design standards are routinely evaluated and revised as necessary to improve safety and reliability. Whenever new facilities are built, they must meet these improved design codes and industry standards. Environmental regulations, primarily from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) or the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) require new tanks to meet lower emission levels of organic vapors especially for materials that have higher vapor pressures (such as gasoline). Additionally, oil spill prevention regulations under the federal regulations (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 112), and the California Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.67) require secondary containment and other spill prevention measures for petroleum storage tanks.

To ensure the proper storage and handling of petroleum products, Refinery tanks are inspected in accordance with industry codes, including the American Petroleum Institute Standard 653 (API-653), “Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction.” To accomplish certain inspections required by this standard, tanks must be taken out of service on a periodic basis, cleaned, and inspected internally. Routine repairs will be made during this time and additional repairs may be made depending on the results of the inspections. Such cleaning, inspection, and repairs may take 6 to 12 months to complete. At some point, a tank will reach its end-of-life, and will then be permanently removed from service.

Under normal circumstances, the Refinery has about one tank under construction at all times in order to comply with legally-required tank inspection and maintenance schedules, end-of-life tank replacements, and changes in tank service. However, Chevron has not built any new tanks at the Refinery in over five years. New tanks are needed to allow certain tanks to be removed from service for legally-required inspections and to replace several tanks that have already been removed from service.

Accordingly, Chevron plans to replace five existing petroleum storage tanks with five newly constructed tanks. The summary of the tank changes is provided below in Table 1-1. In addition, to improve fire response capabilities to meet California Fire Code requirements, Chevron plans to construct a new firewater tank in the Quarry Tank Field. The firewater tank will be situated on an elevated site above the Quarry Tank Field to gravity feed firewater to the Quarry Tank Field in order to improve firefighting capabilities.

These tanks are involved in operation and throughput of Refinery systems that are independent of and not affected by the Chevron Energy & Hydrogen Renewal Project (Renewal Project)1. Although four of the tanks listed in Table 1-1 were analyzed for convenience in the Renewal Project Master Environmental

1. The Renewal Project EIR was certified by the City of Richmond in 2008. However, portions of the EIR were found by the court to be inadequate and the certification was set aside. None of the data, information or analysis found inadequate by the court has been used in this Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Impact Report (EIR), along with numerous other pieces of refinery equipment, they are required for normal Refinery operations that are completely independent of the Renewal Project.

Under the City of Richmond Zoning Ordinance, petroleum refining and related industries are conditionally permitted in the M-3 (heavy industry) zoning district and storage tank farms adjacent to industrial uses are conditionally permitted uses in the CRR (community and regional recreation) district if adjacent to industrial uses. The tank replacement project is within the M-3 and CRR zoning districts and is therefore subject to review by the Planning Commission to ensure that the replacement tanks and firewater tank will be designed, located, and operated compatibly with adjoining land uses.

The five petroleum storage tanks will be field-fabricated within existing Refinery tank fields (see Figure 1-1) and will be provided with secondary containment meeting all of the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure capture of spills. Construction time for the tanks will range from 12 to 18 months, depending on the size and location of the tank. Each tank will typically require 10 construction workers per day of various crafts who will arrive through Refinery Gate 91.

The Quarry Firewater Tank (T-3230) will have a capacity of 103,000 barrels2 (4,326,000 gallons) and will be 120.75 feet in diameter and 61 feet in overall height. This tank will be located in the Quarry Tank Field (see Figure 1-1) to provide water into the firewater system through a new 24-inch high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe which is Factory Mutual approved for fire water applications. The tank will be filled with treated Refinery wastewater that would otherwise be discharged under permit through a deepwater outfall into San Pablo Bay. The Quarry Firewater Tank will act as a reservoir for any type of firewater use including fires, fire watch, and hydrant/fire-pump testing. The Quarry Firewater tank will be taken out of service as required every 10 years for routine inspection, at which time it will be emptied and re-filled.

In addition to the firewater line upgrades, three new portable diesel firewater pumps and monitors will be provided. The new piping from the Quarry Firewater Tank to the Quarry firewater system will be buried under the new road which will connect Western Drive with Ridge Road. Improvement of the access road could start as early as March 2011. A minor additional extension of road will be provided to access the Quarry Firewater Tank site. The firewater piping construction will begin as early as mid 2011 with tank construction commencing in May 2012. Construction of the Quarry Firewater Tank will take about 12 months.

The overall construction is scheduled to take 47 months for the six tanks as shown in Table 1-2 below. During most of the 47 month schedule, two tanks will be constructed at once; while three tanks will be in various stages of construction for four months; and only one tank under construction for 12 months. The first several months of tank construction typically involves site grading, preparation, and installation of the tank foundation. The next and longest phase of construction involves the fabrication of the tank bottom, shell, roof and other features using cranes and welding equipment. The final phase of tank construction over the last couple of months of the schedule involves painting and electrical installation for lighting and instrumentation. The last phase is not expected to require significant use of heavy duty diesel-powered equipment such as cranes.

Tank construction will require truck deliveries of raw materials through Refinery Gate 31. For each tank, approximately four deliveries per day will occur during the first four weeks, and two deliveries per week will occur for the subsequent eight weeks. The Quarry Firewater Tank construction will be phased to start such that no more than four deliveries of materials will occur per day. In addition the scope of work assumes that the tanks being replaced in-kind at the same site will be demolished, and that a total of five tanks will be demolished. Typically shear cranes and/or cutting torches will be used to reduce the tank to sections of steel that can be placed on vehicles to be sent for recycling. Demolition would be sequenced

2. One barrel equals 42 gallons.

such that scrap metal will not be shipped offsite while raw materials for the new tank are being delivered. A maximum of four scrap metal shipments per day would be expected on four occasions.

During tank construction and demolition, soils will be disturbed both by grading activities and by construction vehicles within the Refinery. Although soil grading would be expected to be relatively shallow, any soil disturbed within the Refinery has the potential to have been impacted by historical hydrocarbon contamination. The Quarry Firewater Tank will require minor cut into the sloping hillside, and the entire tank will be supported on engineered fill and piers. A maximum of 750 cubic yards of soil will be excavated and sloped to minimize any potential for erosion. The firewater improvements also will include three (3) new portable diesel fire water pumps that will be housed in a central location and taken where needed in the tank farm to supply water at the proper flow rate and pressure for fighting fires.

The locations of the new storage tanks are shown in Figure 1-1.

Summary of Mitigation Measures

The construction and operation of the replacement and new tanks will result in less-than-significant impacts in most CEQA topic areas. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will ensure that all potential impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure IIIa-1 (Air Quality) Chevron shall implement all of the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

Mitigation Measure IIIa-2 (Air Quality) Chevron shall use low-VOC paints in the tank coating phase.

Mitigation Measure IVa-1 (Biological Resources) Pre-construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted for the proposed Quarry Firewater Tank site prior to any grading or construction during the nesting bird season, between December 15 and August 31. If a nest is discovered within the construction area or within a 50-foot radius around the construction area, a buffer shall be established around the nest (50-feet for most birds and 250-feet for owls, hawks, herons, and egrets) until the birds have fledged. California Department of Fish & Game shall be contacted to determine alternative buffer zone configurations.

Mitigation Measure IVa-2 (Biological Resources) Chevron shall perform pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl on the proposed Quarry Firewater Tank site, including a 250-foot buffer, according to California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC) guidelines (CBOC 1997), regardless of the time of year that construction begins.

If active burrows are detected, impacts may be avoided by restricting project activities to more than 160 feet of an occupied burrow during the non-breeding season (September 1-January 31) or disturbance within 250 feet during the breeding season (February 1-August 31). If there are burrowing owls located within the project area CDFG shall be notified and a buffer shall be established around any active burrows. Mitigation for loss of burrowing owl habitat shall be implemented in accordance with CBOC guidelines.

Mitigation Measure IVe (Biological Resources) Cut-and-fill at the Firewater Tank site shall not exceed the estimates provided on Diagram SK-3230-1, dated November 19, 2010, submitted with the Project application. The final grading plan for the Firewater Tank site shall provide a one-for-one replacement of any trees removed from that site at a suitable location within the Refinery.

Mitigation Measure Vb (Cultural Resources) In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, such as structural features or unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human

remains, architectural remains (such as bricks or other foundation elements), or historic archaeological artifacts (such as antique glass bottles, ceramics, horseshoes, etc.), all work within 50 feet of the discovered resources shall be halted. Procedures of 36 CFR Part 800.13(b) and (c); PRC Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99; and the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would be followed, including calling an archaeologist or paleontologist to evaluate the materials.

Mitigation Measure Vc (Cultural Resources) In the event that paleontological resources are discovered during Project construction, work shall be halted until a paleontologist evaluates the nature and significance of the resources. If significant resources are confirmed, the paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies (including but not limited to California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the California Department of State Parks (DSP)) to determine procedures to be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If a consulted agency determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan that minimizes the effect of the Project on the qualities that make the resource important. Upon approval of the City, such plan shall be implemented.

Mitigation Measure Vd (Cultural Resources) In the event that Project-related earthwork uncovers human remains, the procedures set forth in CEQA Guideline 15064.5(e) shall be followed: There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the county coroner has determined whether the remains may be Native American and, if so, contacted the Native American Heritage Commission.

Mitigation Measure VIb (Geology and Soils) An erosion control plan incorporating a final landscaping plan will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit for the Quarry Firewater Tank site. No grading permit will be issued until the City Engineer, or his or her designee, approves the erosion control plan’s measures for reducing all impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure VIc (Geology and Soils) A design-level geotechnical and soils report will evaluate each new tank location for the presence of unstable geologic units or soils. All measures recommended in the report will be incorporated into the project to ensure a less-than-significant impact related to geologic or soil instability.

Mitigation Measure VIIIb (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) Chevron follows standard protocols in the Yellow Book, which is a detailed procedure developed by Chevron to ensure that sampling and characterization of soil that will be disturbed or excavated is performed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. These procedures include pre-sampling of soils that will be excavated to determine if they would be hazardous materials, hazardous waste or would require regulated management or special handling for other reasons, such as the existence of a designated waste. If graded or excavated soil meets the characteristics of a hazardous material (which includes hazardous waste), the soil would be properly handled and transported off site, in nominally 20 cubic yard trucks. If the soil is hazardous waste, disposal will be at a properly licensed Class I hazardous waste landfill or a non-hazardous waste industrial landfill if it is a non-hazardous waste. After excavation, and prior to off-site disposal, all soil will be managed appropriately on site including labeling for hazardous wastes and Department of Transportation (DOT) marking or placarding, if applicable. All shipments of soil will be recorded on uniform hazardous waste manifests or Bills of Lading. Compliance with Yellow Book protocols will reduce risk of accidental release of hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure IXf (Hydrology and Water Quality)

If abandoned wells (water, environmental, or geotechnical) or septic tanks are discovered in the course of construction or other activities, Chevron shall clearly mark the discovery, keep the area secure, and obtain

a permit from the Contra Costa Environmental Health Division (CCEHD) and destroy the well and/or septic tank pursuant to CCEHD requirements.

Mitigation Measure XIIb (Noise) Pile driving activities for the Quarry Firewater Tank site shall be limited to daytime hours between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays, and shall not occur during weekends and state or federal holidays.

Mitigation Measure XVIb-1 (Transportation/Traffic) Truck deliveries for the Tank Replacement Project shall be limited to occur outside of the AM peak period (6:00 AM - 9:00 AM) or PM peak period (4:00 PM - 6:00 PM).

Mitigation Measure XVIb-2 (Transportation/Traffic) Chevron and the construction contractor shall develop a construction traffic management plan to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic congestion and the effects of parking demand by construction workers during construction of this project and other nearby projects that could be simultaneously under construction. The construction traffic management plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Building Services Department and the Engineering Department prior to commencement of construction. The plan should consider the following items and requirements:

• Provision for accommodation of pedestrian flow; and

• Provision for parking management and spaces for all construction workers to ensure that construction workers do not park in on-street spaces.

Table 0-1 Summary of Chevron Richmond Refinery Replacement and New Tanks

Capacity Material Location of Tank # Description2 (Size)1 (Characteristics) New Tank T-3229 101,000 Recovered Oil Lower Main Tank Field Replaces T-3076, which is in 112’ Ø x 64‘ (material of variable recovered oil service. This tank composition, generally of low needs to be temporarily removed vapor pressure) from service for inspection and any required maintenance. Upon completion, T-3076 will be returned to gas oil service - replacing T-1451 (144’ Ø x 45.25”, about 130,000 barrels) which was removed from service in 2009. T-3232 120,000 Tetramer (very low vapor T-956 site Replaces one riveted tank T-956 115’ Ø x 67‘ pressure viscous material, S.P. Hill Tank Field (70,000 barrels, 120’ Ø x 38.5’) with with molecules containing one modern designed welded tank. about 9 or 10 carbon atoms T-956 will be demolished. each used by the petrochemical industry to manufacture various products) T-3233 75,000 Refinery Cutter T-982 site if approved Replaces T-979 (76,000 barrels, 105’ Ø x 51‘ (non-volatile diesel-like stock prior to 2011. 120’ Ø x 40’) which will be removed that is blended into fuel oil to T-979 site if approved from service and demolished. reduce viscosity) after April 2011. T-979 must be removed from service Lower Main Tank Field by April 2012. 12-Month construction period must start prior to April 2011. T-3231 95,000. Aviation gasoline for piston Adjacent to Replaces T-3075 (35,000 barrels, 110’ Ø x 66‘ driven aircraft engines. Also T-3214 site 85’ Ø x 40’) which will be removed used by Cal-Fire in seasonal Lower Main Tank Field from service. firefighting. T-3228 150,000 Automotive gasoline T-953 site Replaces T-634 (55,000 barrels, 128’ Ø x 76‘ S.P. Hill Tank Field 115’ Ø x 35’) which will be removed from service. Will be located on the current site of T-953 which will be demolished. Quarry 103,000 Water for firefighting Quarry Tank Field New firewater tank in Quarry Tank Firewater 120.75’ Ø x purposes. Field to improve fire system reliability (T-3230) 61‘

Notes: 1. Capacity is in barrels (1 barrel = 42 gallons) and tank size is shown as diameter, Ø (in feet) x height (in feet). All tanks are aboveground cylindrical tanks constructed of carbon steel. . 2. Total Capacity of new petroleum tanks =541,000 barrels. Total Capacity of petroleum tanks removed from service = 366,000 barrels.

Table 0-2 Tank Construction Schedule in Months

Tank No. Duration (Months) Construction Start Construction End T-3229 18 Month 1 Month 18 T-3232 12 Month 1 Month 12 T-3233 12 Month 12 Month 23 Quarry Firewater 12 Month 16 Month 27 T-3231 18 Month 24 Month 41 T-3228 13 Month 35 Month 47

Notes: 1. Months with 3 tanks under construction – 4 2. Months with 2 tanks under construction – 30 3. Months with 1 tanks under construction – 13

Figure 0-1 New Tank Locations

2.0 Environmental Checklist

Pursuant to Section 15063 of CEQA Guidelines, an explanation is required for all “Potentially Significant Impact,” “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated,” and “Less Than Significant Impact” answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified.

2.1 Introduction

The environmental checklist provides a standard evaluation tool to identify a project's potential environmental impacts. This checklist identifies and evaluates potential environmental impacts that may be created by the replacement and new tanks.

2.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Greenhouse Gases Population / Housing Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation/Traffic Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems Geology /Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance

2.3 Determination:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a

NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant

unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,

because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Lamont Thompson, Senior Planner Date

10 Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant No Significant Significant With Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated

2.4 Environmental Checklist and Discussion

I. AESTHETICS

- Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Comment to Question Ia: The Refinery site does not contain any individual structures or natural features (e.g., heritage trees) that have aesthetic significance. From a distance, the hillside tank fields themselves offer a scenic note in the landscape, but the change in the configuration of tanks will be virtually unnoticeable from such a distance. The replacement and new tanks will be placed so that they do not intervene between any public vantage point and a scenic vista. Therefore, the impact on scenic vistas would be less-than-significant.

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

Comment to Question Ib: There are no scenic highways in the vicinity of the Refinery and thus the replacement and new tanks would have no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway.

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Comment to Question Ic

Existing views would be minimally altered by the addition of some of the replacement storage tanks and the new firewater tank. The existing and proposed tank locations and their heights are described in Table 1-1 and shown in Figure 1-1. The replacement and new tanks will be designed to match the appearance and character of existing surrounding Refinery equipment. The tanks will be painted in accordance with City of Richmond-approved Chevron Coatings Manual. A few of the tanks would be slightly taller and wider than the existing tank structures and thus could be perceived as a change from existing conditions.

The tanks will be constructed within the developed portion of the existing area of the Refinery, which has been an active industrial facility for more than 100 years. The construction of the tanks would be consistent with the existing industrial appearance of the overall complex and this portion of the City of Richmond.

Figure 2-1, Viewpoint Location Map, shows the viewpoints from which photographs were taken for visual simulations of the tanks. Figure 2-2 depicts the existing view conditions from the south from Crest Avenue, an elevated viewpoint in a residential portion of the Point Richmond community. This viewpoint represents a mid-range view of the Refinery from a residential neighborhood. In the foreground, hillside vegetation and single family homes are visible. In mid-range views, the 7-story Chevron Technology Center office building at Chevron Way and Castro Street is visible in the center of the view, with the Refinery process areas appearing immediately behind and above this building, with about 35 tall and narrow stacks and stack-like structures and white spherical tanks. About 8 steel lattice towers that support high voltage electrical transmission lines also can be seen. As shown in Figure 2-3, the most prominent addition to the Refinery’s ‘skyline’ from this viewpoint would be the proposed T-3232 (a 67-feet high tetramer tank), which appears

11 Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant No Significant Significant With Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated

in an area without existing tanks. T-3228 and T-3231 (76-feet and 66-feet high, respectively), located in front of other existing tanks would be visible from this viewpoint and have white domed tops. The other tanks are not visible from this viewpoint. From Crest Avenue, the Project would minimally intensify the visual impact of industrial development in this location, and would represent a small incremental change from existing conditions.

Figure 2-4 depicts the existing conditions from the southeast from Buena Vista Avenue, another elevated mid- range viewpoint in a residential portion of the Point Richmond community. In the foreground, hillside vegetation, single family homes, and 2-3-story commercial buildings along East Richmond Avenue are visible. The heavily vegetated Judge George D. Carroll Community Park is also visible in the foreground. The 7-story Chevron Technology Center office building at Redwood Way and Castro Street is clearly visible in the center of the view. The Refinery process areas are visible right of center, with about 21 tall and narrow stacks and stack-like structures and white spherical tanks, as well as many of the Refinery’s low-rise industrial buildings.

About 8 steel lattice towers that support high voltage electrical transmission lines also can be seen. A portion of the elevated I-580 freeway is visible in the middle ground to the far right of the view. The middle ground views from this vantage point include about 32 Refinery tanks on the southeastern slopes of the hill formed by the Point San Pablo Peninsula to the left of center. In the distance, views of the gently rolling hills beyond the Refinery can be seen.

Figure 2-5 shows that views of the Refinery after Project completion would be very similar to the existing conditions with only T-3231 (66-feet high) adding to the Refinery’s “skyline”. The tank would be located in front of other tanks, but stands out a bit more with the white top. This tank would minimally intensify the visual impact of industrial development from this viewpoint, and would represent an incremental change from existing conditions.

Figure 2-6 depicts the Quarry Tank Farm and a portion of SP Hill Tank Farm from a viewpoint looking west from the upper deck of the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge. This viewpoint represents a relatively short-range view of the Quarry and SP Hill Tank Farms. However, this view would not be available to motorists as the upper level of the bridge serves westbound traffic, opposite the Quarry Tank Field. Eastbound motorists on the lower deck of the bridge could glimpse views of the Quarry Tank Field for brief periods at freeway speeds, although views would be partially obscured by bridge infrastructure and the overhead roadway deck serving westbound traffic. In the foreground, glimpses of bridge infrastructure, including overhead lighting and railing, and glimpses of the San Pablo Bay waters are visible. The northwesterly-trending Point San Pablo Peninsula ridgeline is prominent in this view, extending up to an elevation of approximately 380 feet above mean sea level (msl). Vegetation is concentrated along the ridgeline, at the lower terrace and below towards the Bay waters, and along the northwestern slope. Terracing along the western slope also supports some vegetation. The vegetation partially obstructs some views of the Refinery tanks. The visible Refinery tanks (about 19) are clustered, and situated along the southern slope of the ridge, closest to I-580, with a few tanks also located along the lowest terrace.

The view would be slightly altered by the addition of the new Quarry Firewater Tank (Figure 2-7) which would be located to the north of existing tanks and at a higher elevation. This tank would minimally intensify the visual impact of industrial development from this viewpoint, and would represent an incremental change from existing conditions.

12 Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant No Significant Significant With Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Comment to Questions Id: The tanks will not create a new source of substantial light or glare that could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The tanks will be painted in an earth brown color with matte paint and will not reflect sunlight. Please refer to Figures 2-3, 2-5, and 2-7.

Figure 2-1 Viewpoint Locations for Chevron Tank Simulations

Figure 2-2 Crest Avenue Viewpoint – Existing Conditions

Figure 2-3 Crest Avenue Viewpoint – Stimulation with Labels

Figure 2-4 Buena Vista Avenue Viewpoint – Existing Conditions

Figure 2-5 Buena Vista Avenue Viewpoint – Simulation with Labels

Figure 2-6 Richmond San Rafael Bridge Viewpoint – Existing Conditions

Figure 2-7 Richmond San Rafael Bridge Viewpoint – Simulation

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

- Would the project: 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?

Comment to Questions IIa-IIb: The replacement petroleum tanks and the firewater tank and piping improvements would be constructed entirely within the confines of the existing Refinery, which has occupied the site for over one hundred years. No areas within the Refinery are designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation. The Refinery is classified as Urban Land and Built-up Land and Other (California Department of Conservation, 2008). Thus, the tanks would have no impact on any farmland. The Refinery is zoned for heavy industrial uses and is not covered by a Williamson Act contract. Thus, the tanks would not conflict with existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

15 Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant No Significant Significant With Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated

Comment to Questions IIc-IIe: Forest land, timberland, and land zoned for Timberland Production do not exist within the Refinery. Construction and operation of the tanks does not involve other activities which may result in the conversion of farmland, timberland, or forest land.

III. AIR QUALITY

- Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Comment to Question IIIa: Background The City of Richmond is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). Air quality issues are overseen by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The “criteria air 3 pollutants” are ozone (O3) , nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb).

For planning purposes, regional air basins like the SFBAAB are given air quality status “labels” by the federal and state regulatory agencies with regard to compliance with the established standards for the criteria air pollutants. Areas with monitored pollutant concentrations that are lower than national or state ambient air quality standards are designated as “attainment areas” on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. When monitored concentrations exceed ambient standards, areas are designated as “nonattainment areas.” An area is designated “unclassified” if air quality data are inadequate to assign it an attainment or nonattainment designation. Unclassified areas are normally treated the same as attainment areas for regulatory purposes. Nonattainment areas are further classified (based on the severity and persistence of the air quality problem) as “marginal”, “moderate,” “serious”, “severe”, or “extreme.” Classifications determine the applicability and minimum stringency of pollution control requirements.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified the SFBAAB as a “marginal” nonattainment area for ozone (O3) relative to the previous 8-hour national standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm), effective June 15, 2004. The EPA lowered the national 8-hour O3 standard to 0.075 ppm effective May 27, 2008, but an official classification relative to the new standard is not anticipated until March 2011. The air basin is also currently designated as “nonattainment” for the national 24-hour PM2.5 standard and “unclassified” for the national 24-hour PM10 standard. The Bay Area is designated as an attainment area for the remaining national standards (NO2, SO2, CO, and lead). Relative to the generally more stringent state standards, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has given the air basin state-level nonattainment status for O3 (severe), PM10 (serious), and PM2.5 (serious), and state-level attainment status for NO2, SO2, CO, and lead.

Significance Thresholds Project-related air quality impacts would be considered significant if any BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds are exceeded. On June 2, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted revised CEQA significance levels for

3. Reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are precursors to the formation of atmospheric ozone, a regional air pollutant.

16 Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant No Significant Significant With Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated air quality. Except for projects involving the assessment of risk and hazards to new receptors, these revised criteria apply to projects for which a Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published or the environmental analysis begins on or after June 2, 2010. For risks and hazards to new receptors, the effective date is January 1, 2011. The newly revised BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds apply to the Tank Replacements.

The BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds adopted on June 2, 2010, include thresholds for construction and operational emissions. The thresholds as they apply to individual projects are summarized in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 BAAQMD CEQA Significance Thresholds for Individual Projects Adopted June 2, 2010

Construction Operation Pollutant Average Daily Emissions Average Daily Emissions Maximum Annual Emissions (lb/day) (lb/day) (tons/year) Criteria Air Pollutants Reactive Organic Gases 54 54 10 (ROG) NOx 54 54 10 PM10 82 (exhaust only) 82 15 PM2.5 54 (exhaust only) 54 10 PM10/PM2.5 Best Management None None (fugitive dust) Practices Local CO None 9.0 ppm (8-hour average, 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) Risk/Hazards Increased Cancer Risk >10 in one million >10 in one million >10 in one million Increased Non-Cancer >1.0 Hazard Index >1.0 Hazard Index >1.0 Hazard Index Risk (chronic or acute) (chronic or acute) (chronic or acute) Ambient PM2.5 Increase >0.3 μg/m3 >0.3 μg/m3 >0.3 μg/m3 Zone of Influence 1000-foot radius from 1000-foot radius from 1000-foot radius from fenceline of source fenceline of source fenceline of source

Construction Emissions Potential emissions during the tank construction phase were estimated using the Urban Emissions (URBEMIS) 2007 Version 9.2.4 computer model, in accordance with BAAQMD guidance provided in California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2010a). URBEMIS is designed to model construction emissions for land use development projects and allows for the input of project-specific information.

The supporting documentation found in Appendix A for construction and operational air emissions calculations includes the URBEMIS model outputs. Construction time for each tank will range from 12 to 18 months, depending on the size and location of the tank with an overall construction schedule of 47 months for the six tanks. Over about thirty-one months of the 47-month schedule, there will be two tanks under construction simultaneously. There are four months scheduled where construction overlaps for three tanks. For two of the three tanks during each of these four months, this occurs only at the very beginning of the tank construction schedule or at the very end of the tank construction schedule, where construction activity will be ramping up or down. During thirteen months of the construction schedule there will only be one tank undergoing construction.

Table 2-2 summarizes the results of the annual average construction emissions from construction equipment exhaust and PM10 and PM2.5 from fugitive dust as compared to the June 2, 2010 BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds. The URBEMIS “mitigated” runs are reported. The mitigations assumed were watering for fugitive dust control and the use of low-VOC paints in the tank coating phase. The construction of the proposed tanks will implement the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures described in Table 8-2 of the California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2010a) for fugitive dust, which includes watering as well as other commonly used construction mitigation measures. The Basic Construction Mitigation Measures are the recommended fugitive dust control measures if all other emissions are below the numeric significance thresholds, such as with this Tank Replacement Project. These findings and mitigations lead to a less-than-significant impact to air quality according to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

As shown in Table 2-2, the estimated construction and demolition phase emissions are all below the applicable BAAQMD thresholds. Details of these calculations can be found in Appendix A.

Table 2-2 Construction/Demolition Emissions and New Tanks

PM PM PM PM Parameter ROG NOx 10 2.5 10 2.5 (exhaust) (exhaust) (dust) (dust) Average Annual Emissions (tons/yr) 1.43 8.28 0.43 0.40 0.89 0.19 Average Daily Emissions (lb/day) 7.9 45.3 2.4 2.2 4.9 1.0 BAAQMD Significance Levels 54 54 82 54 Best Management (lb/day) Practices Significant Emissions Increase? NO NO NO NO NO NO

Impact IIIa-1: Project construction may cause air quality impacts from fugitive dust and from emissions caused by machinery, vehicles and other construction-related equipment.

Mitigation Measure IIIa-1: Chevron shall implement all of the following Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended by BAAQMD:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer‘s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District‘s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Impact IIIa-2: Tank coating releases volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including but not limited to ROG, into the atmosphere.

Mitigation Measure IIIa-2 (Air Quality): Chevron shall use low-VOC paints in the tank coating phase.

Operational Emissions

Operational emissions from the replacement and new tanks are based on maximum throughputs to be permitted by the BAAQMD and were generated using the EPA TANKS program, Version 4.09d. The emission calculation details are provided in Appendix A. The only pollutants that result from operation of the proposed replacement tanks are volatile organic compound (VOCs) from the roof seals and features such as access hatches that are gasketed and bolted closed at all times. These tank emissions are calculated as part of the overall storage tank emissions estimate. The only source of fugitive emissions would be minor leaks from the above-ground piping system of the petroleum storage tanks. Such emissions can be expected to increase slightly (0.8 tons/year) due to minor piping changes, but will remain less-than-significant.

Though the five new petroleum tanks will have more capacity than the tanks being replaced, the greater efficiency of the tanks will ensure that there is no net increase in emissions over baseline conditions.

For the purposes of this analysis, all VOCs are assumed to be reactive organic gases (ROG), that is, precursors to atmospheric ozone formation. Operational emissions are summarized in Table 2-3 below and compared against the June 2, 2010 BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds. This includes emission reduction baseline data provided by Chevron based on the actual past emissions of the five petroleum tanks that are to be removed from service.

Table 2-3 Operations Emissions Associated with the Replacement and New Tanks

ROG Emissions ROG Emissions Tank Tank Type (lb/year) (tons/year)

T-3229 Recovered Oil External Floating Roof 6,800 3.4

T-3232 Tetramer Service Vertical Fixed Roof 402 0.2

T-3233 Refinery Cutter Vertical Fixed Roof 3,069 1.5

Domed Internal T-3231 Aviation Gasoline 1,886 0.9 Floating Roof

Domed Internal T-3228 Motor Gasoline 2,803 1.4 Floating Roof

Quarry Firewater Tank Vertical Fixed Roof 0 0.0

Fugitive emissions from piping system -- 1,520 0.8

Total Emissions (lb/year) -- 16,480 --

Total Emissions (tons/year)a -- -- 8.2

Total Emissions (lb/day)a -- 45.1 --

BAAQMD Significance Levels -- 54 lb/day 10 tons per year

Significant Emissions Increase? -- NO NO

a. Estimate of maximum future VOC emissions for the five replacement petroleum storage tanks.

No BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds will be exceeded during construction or operation of the replacement petroleum tanks and new firewater tank. Rather, a net ROG emissions decrease from current operational levels may occur with replacement of the five petroleum storage tanks. Calculated baseline and emission reductions associated with the removal of these five existing tanks are provided in Appendix A.

Emissions increases less than the BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of current air quality plans. Thus there would be a less-than-significant impact on any applicable air quality plan.

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

Comment to Question IIIb: As discussed above, though the replacement and new petroleum tanks are larger than the tanks being taken out of service, greater operating efficiency will ensure that there is no increase in operational emissions. During the construction phase, all criteria pollutant emissions will be less than the applicable BAAQMD significance levels. Therefore, operational emissions from the replacement and new tanks and construction emissions will not cause or contribute to a violation of any national or state ambient air quality standard, which is a less-than-significant impact.

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Comment to Question IIIc: The BAAQMD is currently in nonattainment of the national and state ozone standards. NOx and ROG are precursors to ozone formation. As discussed above, the only operational air emissions will be ROG, which will be less-than significant and may result in a net decrease in tank emissions when compared to baseline conditions. Thus, there would be no cumulative impacts during operation of the tanks when taking into account future projects in the area.

However, the grading, site preparation, and construction of the tanks will result in temporary net increases of ROG and NOx emissions. There are several reasonably foreseeable projects in the City of Richmond that could, in combination with the construction of the tanks, potentially contribute to cumulative air quality impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. With respect to the nonattainment pollutants PM10 and PM2.5, due to the refinery's location at the western edge of the City of Richmond, projects outside the City or the North Richmond/West County area would be several miles away, which is too far to have any reasonable potential to cumulate. The projects described in the cumulative impacts analysis of Section XIII (Mandatory Findings of Significance) identified less than significant impact, or less than significant impact with mitigation, on air quality due to construction activity. In addition, these projects will likely be built out over different time periods from the Tank Replacement Project. With respect to the other nonattainment pollutant, ozone, regional construction emission estimates are included in the District-wide emissions inventory used by the BAAQMD in regional air basin modeling as the basis for air quality plans designed to achieve attainment of air quality standards. The estimated construction emissions presented in Table 2-2 for the Tank Replacements, when combined with potential simultaneous construction emissions from other foreseeable projects would be consistent with the regional emission inventory estimates and would therefore not be expected to impede attainment and maintenance of air quality standards. This is consistent with BAAQMD-recommended guidance in the California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2010a), where it is stated in Section 2.6.1 that if “…daily average emissions of construction-related criteria air pollutants or precursors would exceed any applicable Threshold of Significance listed in [shown here as Table 2-2], the project would result in a significant cumulative impact.” Because the project-level construction impacts are less than the adopted project-level CEQA significance level, and these emissions are accounted for in regional air quality planning, they would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of air quality plans, and as emissions from the construction of the tanks will be below the thresholds of significance with implementation of Mitigation Measures IIIa-1 and IIIa-2, impacts to air quality in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects would be cumulatively less-than-significant.

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Comment to Question IIId: Sensitive receptors are defined as land uses where sensitive population groups are likely to be located (e.g., children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill). These land uses include residences, schools, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, and medical care facilities. Emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with construction and operation of the proposed project are below BAAQMD CEQA significance levels, thus sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial concentrations of these pollutants or secondary regional ozone formation as a result of the replacement and new tanks. However, individual organic chemicals contained in the mixtures to be stored in the new replacement tanks would be part of overall ROG emissions from the new tanks. Some of these are listed as toxic air contaminants (TACs) by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The potential for substantial localized exposures to these individual compounds are assessed by the increased health risks they may pose.

Cancer risk is defined as the probability (chance) of developing cancer as a result of exposure to a carcinogen, typically expressed as the probable number of increased cases per one million population. Non-cancer health risk of an inhaled air toxic is measured by the hazard index, which is the ratio of the reported concentration of an air toxic compound to an acceptable or “reference” exposure level (REL). Hazard indices can be calculated both on a chronic toxicity and acute toxicity basis. Chronic toxicity is defined as adverse biologic effects caused by prolonged chemical exposure. Since chemical accumulation to toxic levels typically occurs slowly, symptoms of chronic effects usually do not appear until long after exposure commences. Acute toxicity is defined as adverse biologic effects caused by a brief chemical exposure of no more than 24 hours.

Significance thresholds for maximum increased health risks from new projects, as contained in the revised BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds adopted July 2, 2010, are:

• An increased cancer risk greater than 10.0 in one million • An increased non-cancer risk greater than a hazard index of 1.0 (chronic or acute) 3 • An ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 μg/m annual average

Construction Emissions

Potential health risk impacts from the construction phases of the replacement and new tanks were assessed using the recent BAAQMD guidance, Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction (BAAQMD 2010b). This guidance lists minimum distances required between a construction site and a nearby sensitive receptor to ensure that cancer and non-cancer risks associated with the project are less than significant per the District’s significance thresholds for construction risk/hazards (see Table 2-1). These distances are tabulated for residential, commercial, or industrial projects as a function of the number of units or the project site acreage, based on conservative construction and dispersion modeling scenarios.

In this case, the activity would be industrial and would be assessed based on site acreage. The typical project site area per tank is about 33,000 square feet (or 0.76 acres). URBEMIS assumes a greater disturbed area to account for all construction, in this case, 1.52 acres for a 33,000-square-foot site.

As previously described, a maximum of three tanks will be constructed simultaneously, and this will occur over four months of the 47-month construction schedule. Although in each of these four months, one tank would be at the very end of its construction, when heavy equipment would not be used (i.e., chiefly tank coating/painting; installation of insulation, if required; and installation of electrical components and instrumentation), simultaneous operation of heavy equipment at all three sites is assumed for evaluation of construction toxic emissions. Each construction site is about 33,000 square

feet or about 100,000 square feet for simultaneous construction of three tanks. Using this assumption, the 100,000-square-foot (4.6-acre) row in Table 2 of the Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction (BAAQMD 2010b) for industrial projects would apply, which provides the following “safe” setback distances between the construction site and an off-site receptor:

Cancer risk (based on diesel particulate matter [DPM] emissions): 175 meters Chronic hazard index (based on DPM emissions): 20 meters Chronic hazard index (based on acrolein emissions): 10 meters Acute hazard index (based on acrolein emissions): 85 meters

PM2.5 annual average concentration: 125 meters

Based on this analysis, a setback of 175 meters would provide for a less-than-significant cancer risk and would be greater than the minimum distances required for the other health risk parameters. As just described, this assessment is based on assuming the simultaneous use of heavy construction equipment at three tank sites (all assumed at the same location). As the Project is proposed, however, the three simultaneous construction sites are projected for only four months of the 47-month construction schedule and would not occur at the same location. The minimum distance from any one tank associated with this project to the closest sensitive receptor is about 490 meters (Tank 956 to the closest residential receptor). Tank 3232 is 230 meters to the administration office of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, which represents the closest off-site worker receptor. Both are greater than the 175-meter setback provided using Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction (BAAQMD 2010b). Therefore, the potential health risks posed by construction of the replacement and new tanks would be less than significant.

There are several reasonably foreseeable projects in and near the City of Richmond that could, in combination with the construction of the tanks, potentially contribute to cumulative air quality impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. These projects, described in the cumulative impact analysis of Section XIII (Mandatory Findings of Significance), identified less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation, on air quality due to construction activity. With respect to potential cumulative health risk impacts from concurrent project construction, the closest of the proposed tanks is to another foreseeable project (Point Molate Remediation) is over 4,000 feet. The BAAQMD CEQA Significance Thresholds (see Table 2-1) prescribe a “zone of influence” within which a proposed project’s potential for health risk impacts should be evaluated. The more than 4,000-foot distance to the other closest foreseeable project is more than twice the 1,000-foot zone of influence for each project, as identified by the BAAQMD. Therefore, the zone of influence for implementation of the Point Molate Remediation and for each of the proposed tanks’ respective zones of influence would not overlap. The same would be true for other foreseeable projects that are located farther away. Thus, there is no potential for the Project to make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact on air quality in combination with the construction of other reasonably foreseeable projects in the area.

Operational Emissions

Operation of the tanks will not result in emissions of PM2.5; therefore, the BAAQMD CEQA significance threshold for potential health risk concerning ambient PM2.5 concentration does not apply.

Previously, Environmental Resources Management (ERM) performed a Health Risk Assessment for a total of 12 tanks. These results can be found in Appendix C. With respect to the estimated health risk impacts, new emissions of toxic air contaminants from these 12 contemplated tanks were evaluated and that analysis was reviewed and applicable portions utilized for this Initial Study.

There was no accounting for emission reductions for the removal of existing tanks from service. The results of the maximum calculated incremental lifetime cancer risks and chronic and acute hazard indices for the 12 tanks were:

• Maximum lifetime cancer risk: 0.27 in one million • Maximum chronic hazard index: 0.00038 • Maximum acute hazard index: 0.00034

These health risk values are all well below the BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds for individual projects of 10 in one million for cancer and a Hazard Index of 1.0. The current Tank Replacements Project will construct only five tanks containing petroleum mixtures, plus the Quarry Firewater Tank. Each of the five petroleum tanks proposed for the Tank Replacements Project has an equivalent tank that was analyzed in the study in Appendix C, (i.e. have similar size and raw material stored). Since the maximum incremental health risk value for the 12 tanks in the ERM study was well below the BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds, the incremental risk for the Tank Replacements (five tanks) would have a lower predicted health risk and would, therefore, also be well below the BAAQMD CEQA significance threshold.

The Quarry Firewater Tank has no VOC emissions and therefore would not contribute any health risk. Also, as noted earlier, there will be a net decrease in operational VOC emissions compared to current baseline conditions when all of the replacement tanks are in operation and would therefore reduce potential health risks accordingly. Therefore, the tanks would not expose sensitive receptors, during either construction or operation, to substantial pollutant concentrations and this impact will be less than significant.

For cumulative health risk impacts from operations, the BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds are 100-in-one-million for cancer risk and 10.0 for chronic hazard index from all local sources, when assessed by State- and BAAQMD-approved calculation methodologies. The cancer risk and chronic hazard index from the Tank Replacements are expected to be below 0.27 in one million and 0.00038, respectively. This cancer risk level is below 1 in one million, a value used by many regulatory agencies as a negligible risk level, and the chronic hazard index is three orders of magnitude below the individual project significance level. The closest foreseeable project is the Point Molate Remediation, over 4,000 feet from the nearest proposed tank. Given these distances, when all local projects are taken into account with the Tank Replacements, it is expected that the calculated cumulative health risks would be well below the BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds for cumulative risk.

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Comment to Question IIIe: Nuisance odors would be prevented as a result of the VOC emission controls on the tanks, as required by BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 5, Sections 304, 305, 307, 321, and 322; and Regulation 10 – 40 CFR 60 Subpart Kb. Therefore, these replacement and new tanks are not expected to result in tank farm operations that differ from past operations and are not expected to be sources of objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. In addition, odor standards under BAAQMD Rule 1-301 and Rules 7-301, 7-302, and 7-303 would further reduce odor impacts by establishing BAAQMD’s involvement in any nuisance odors. Therefore, the tanks would cause a less-than significant increase in perceptible odors compared to the existing operations.

The Tank Replacements project will add five hydrocarbon storage tanks containing automotive gasoline, diesel/cutter stock, aviation gasoline, tetramer, and recovered oil to the Chevron Refinery tank farms. Although the Chevron Refinery has received odor complaints in the past, none of these have been attributable to normal operation of any tank containing the above materials.

During the years 2002 through May of 2005, Chevron received a total of seven odor complaints related to the Refinery. None of the odor complaints were related to emissions from tanks. The BAAQMD reported

no odor complaints regarding the Refinery from 2002 until 2006, and has not reported any odor complaints related to operations of the tanks for at least three years.

The replacement petroleum tanks are generally located 0.5 miles to 1.5 miles of sensitive receptors. The nearest receptors to the southeast in Point Richmond have terrain interferences as well as numerous other structures between the replacement tanks and the receptors.

The replacement petroleum tanks are located predominantly downwind of sensitive receptors. The prevailing wind direction is from the south and southeast which is blowing from the receptors toward the Refinery.

In light of the history of operating tanks with few or no complaints of odors and the prevailing wind direction away from the sensitive directions and toward the San Pablo Bay, it is unlikely that there will be any odor impacts from construction and operation of the replacement tanks.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

- Would the project:

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 California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Comment to Question IVa: All but one of the tank replacement sites (the Quarry Firewater Tank discussed below) are within currently developed areas of the operating Refinery that do not provide potential habitat for special status species. These sites are located in the Lower Main Tank Field and SP Hill Tank Field. These areas are within existing Refinery facilities and are almost completely disturbed or developed. The tank sites do have stands of eucalyptus and Monterey pine at their peripheries. These stands of trees may serve as roosts for special-status bat species or as nest sites for raptor species. However, the areas proposed for construction within the tank fields are separated from potential roosting/nesting trees by the active tank field operational areas. Tank construction, operation, and maintenance activities associated with the tanks are not expected to surpass noise or other disturbance levels already present in the tank farm areas. Thus, potential roost/nest trees will be subject to similar levels of noise and disturbance with the tanks. Therefore, no impacts to these biological resources are anticipated by the replacement of the existing five tanks.

The proposed Quarry Firewater Tank site is adjacent to the Quarry Tank Field. A biological assessment of the Quarry Firewater Tank Site was performed by AECOM in September 2010 and is included in Appendix D.

Part of the Quarry Firewater Tank site has historically been utilized as part of the quarry operations, is void of any vegetation, and is considered to be ruderal or disturbed habitat. The center portion of this area is primarily composed of coyote brush scrub habitat with non-native annual grasses throughout the scrub habitat and along the northeastern side of Quarry Firewater Tank location. Piping from the Quarry Firewater Tank to the Quarry firewater system will be buried under the access road which will connect Western Drive with Ridge Road.

Disturbed patches of coastal scrub and/or annual grasses may be expected to provide habitat to common wildlife species, but due to the constant disturbance associated with the daily operation of the Refinery, these areas would not be likely to support sensitive species.

The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online searchable archives were utilized to generate the species listed in Table 2-4 and Table 2-5. These lists, consisting of species recorded in the San Quentin 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle on which the Refinery is located, list a number of special-status species as having occurred in the vicinity of the Refinery. However, for the reasons stated above, it is unlikely that any would inhabit the areas in which the construction is proposed.

Table 2-4 Special-Status Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Federal California CNPS Common Name Scientific Name Status Status Status coastal triquetrella Triquetrella californica 1B.2 fragrant fritillary Fritillaria liliacea 1B.2 hairless popcorn flower Plagiobothrys glaber 1A Marin western flax Hesperolinon congestum T T 1B.1 Point Reyes bird’s beak Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris 1B.2 showy rancheria clover Trifolium amoenum E 1B.1 Suisun Marsh aster Symphyotrichum lentum 1B.2 Tiburon buckwheat Eriogonum luteolum var. caninum 1B.2 Tiburon jewel-flower Streptanthus niger E E 1B.1 Tiburon mariposa lily Calochortus tiburonensis T T 1B.1 Tiburon paintbrush Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta E T 1B.2 white-rayed pentachaeta Pentachaeta bellidiflora E E 1B.1

Table 2-5 Special-Status Animal Species with the Potential to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Federal California Common Name Scientific Name Status Status Amphibians California red-legged frog Rana draytonii T SoC Birds Alameda song sparrow Melospiza melodia pusillula SoC California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus T California clapper rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus E E Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi SoC Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SoC northern harrier Circus cyaneus SoC San Pablo song sparrow Melospiza melodia samuelis SoC short-eared owl Asio flammeus SoC Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea SoC white-tailed kite Elanus leucurus FP Mammals

Federal California Common Name Scientific Name Status Status pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SoC salt marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris E E salt marsh wandering shrew Sorex vagrans halicoetes SoC San Pablo vole Microtus californicus sanpabloensis SoC Legend: 1A – Plants presumed extinct in California 1B.1 – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 1B.2 – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere T – Threatened E – Endangered SoC – California Species of Concern Impact IVa-1: Grading and construction at the site of the Quarry Firewater Tank could disturb nesting birds in the vicinity.

Mitigation Measure IVa-1: Pre-construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted for the proposed Quarry Firewater Tank site prior to any grading or construction during the nesting bird season, between December 15 and August 31. If a nest is discovered within the construction area or within a 50-foot radius around the construction area, a buffer shall be established around the nest (50-feet for most birds and 250-feet for owls, hawks, herons, and egrets) until the birds have fledged. California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) shall be contacted to determine alternative buffer zone configurations.

Impact IVa-2: Grading and construction at the site of the Quarry Firewater Tank could disturb burrowing owls in the vicinity.

Mitigation Measure IVa-2: Pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted on the proposed Quarry Firewater Tank site, including a 250-foot buffer, according to California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC) guidelines (CBOC 1997), regardless of the time of year that construction begins. Surveys can be completed concurrently with the nesting bird survey (Mitigation Measure IVa-1), if applicable. If active burrows are detected, impacts may be avoided by restricting project activities to more than 160 feet of an occupied burrow during the non-breeding season (September 1-January 31) or disturbance within 250 feet during the breeding season (February 1-August 31). If there are burrowing owls located within the project area, CDFG shall be notified and a buffer shall be established around active burrows. Mitigation for loss of burrowing owl habitat shall be implemented in accordance with CBOC guidelines.

The mitigation measures above will ensure that the site is clear of any sensitive species prior to grading and construction. Therefore, impacts to these biological resources will be less-than-significant.

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 California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

Comment to Question IVb: No riparian areas or other sensitive natural communities occur within or immediately adjacent to the proposed construction areas.

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?

Comment to Question IVc: There are no jurisdictional or isolated wetlands in the area proposed for the replacement and new tanks. The proposed construction areas are sufficiently separated from the nearest jurisdictional wetland feature to avoid all impacts. No federally protected wetlands will be dredged, filled, or otherwise degraded by activities associated with construction or operation of the tanks. Drainage from the tank sites and surrounding areas is directed into the Refinery’s storm water drainage and treatment system. Due to these factors, it is highly unlikely that any waters or wetlands in the vicinity could adversely be affected by the siting, construction or operation of the tanks.

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?

Comment to Question IVd: The site’s long-term operation as a Refinery and resulting regular disturbance and lack of connected areas of native vegetation preclude it from functioning as an effective wildlife corridor. Any potential wildlife corridors including migration (usually one direction per season), inter-population movement (long-term genetic exchange), or small travel pathways (daily movement corridors within an animal’s territory) would have been lost with the habitat fragmentation caused by historical Refinery development. This is true for all but the proposed Quarry Firewater Tank location. The rest would be in-fill within the boundaries and completely surrounded by previous development. Only the Quarry Firewater Tank location would be on the fringe of the existing development of the Refinery property. However, this location is adjacent to the quarry operations on one side and existing Refinery facilities on the other and would not restrict the movement of wildlife.

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

Comment to Question IVe: The City of Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 10.08 (entitled “Trimming, Pruning, Care, Planting, Removal and Moving of Trees, Shrubs or Plants”) restricts removal of trees from public property but does not restrict tree removal from private property. However, Chapter 15.04.510 of the Richmond Municipal Code, which applies to the Project site, creates a “Hillside Physical Constraint Area” Overlay District, for the purpose of preserving hills and ridges and their natural features, including trees. Since grading permits under City of Richmond Municipal Code 12.44.030 require that tree removal be addressed in the application for a grading permit, any conditions of the appropriate grading permit will ensure there is no conflict with these policies.

Impact IVe: Site preparation for the Firewater Tank site may require the removal of trees or alteration of other natural features.

Mitigation Measure IVe: Cut-and-fill at the Firewater Tank site shall not exceed the estimates provided on Diagram SK-3230-1, dated November 19, 2010, submitted with the Project application. The final grading plan for the Firewater Tank site shall provide a one-for-one replacement of any trees removed from that site at a suitable location within the Refinery.

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Comment to Question IVf: There is no adopted habitat conservation plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other habitat conservation plan applicable to the Project site. There is an HCP for East Contra Costa County. However, the City of Richmond is in West Contra Costa County and is not located within the HCP’s boundaries.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES

- Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Guideline 15064.5? Comment to Question Va: The proposed sites for the replacement tanks and firewater tank – the Lower Main Tank Field, SP Well Tank Field and the Quarry Tank Field – are within developed parts of the Refinery that include no historic resources. Construction and operation of the tanks will not require the removal or modification of historic resources.

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource? Comment to Question Vb: A site records search at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, a field reconnaissance, and Native American consultation were performed in 2005 by ESA. The field reconnaissance did not result in the identification of any historic resources, including unique archeological resources. The archival research revealed ten previously identified cultural resources within a half-mile radius of the tank areas but no sites were identified within the proposed construction areas. The Refinery, including the sites of the replacement tanks, is underlain by artificial fill deposits of considerable disturbance due to the extensive excavation conducted for the construction of the Refinery and its ongoing operations. Thus, areas that are proposed for tank construction will not likely affect intact archaeological deposits.

Impact Vb: Earthwork could disturb currently unknown or unidentified subsurface cultural resources.

Mitigation Measure Vb: In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, such as structural features or unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, architectural remains (such as bricks or other foundation elements), or historic archaeological artifacts (such as antique glass bottles, ceramics, horseshoes, etc.), work within 50 feet of the discovered resources shall be halted. Procedures of 36 CFR Part 800.13(b) and (c); PRC Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99; and the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 will be followed, including calling an archaeologist or paleontologist to evaluate the materials. This mitigation measure will reduce the potential impact to less than significant.

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Comment to Question Vc: There are no unique geologic features located at the sites of the replacement and firewater tanks. There would be no impact with respect to unique geologic features.

There are no known unique paleontological resources at the Project sites. The majority of the Refinery contains sandy and alluvial deposits. Although significant paleontological discovery would be unlikely, the Project will require some earthwork which could expose previously unknown paleontological resources. Protocol for the discovery of paleontological resources during construction shall be the same as that for archaeological resources: project activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery would halt, and procedures of 36 CFR Part 800.13(b) and (c); PRC Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99; and the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would be followed, including calling an archaeologist or paleontologist to evaluate the discovered materials.

Impact Vc Project-related earthwork could result in discovery of previously unknown paleontological resources, such as large deposits of fossil remains.

Mitigation Measure Vc: In the event that paleontological resources are discovered during Project construction, work shall be halted until a paleontologist evaluates the nature and significance of the resources. If significant resources are confirmed, the paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies (including but not limited to California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the California Department of State Parks (DSP)) to determine procedures to be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If a consulted agency determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan that minimizes the effect of the Project on the qualities that make the resource important. Upon approval of the City, such plan shall be implemented.

Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the potential impacts to paleontological resources to less-than-significant.

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Comment to Question Vd: There is no indication that a particular site has been used for burial purposes in the recent or distant past within the Refinery boundary. Thus, it is unlikely that interred human remains would be encountered during project construction.

Impact Vd: Project-related earthwork could lead to the discovery of human remains.

Mitigation Measure Vd: In the event that Project-related earthwork uncovers human remains, the procedures set forth in CEQA Guideline 15064.5(e) shall be followed: There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the county coroner has determined whether the remains may be Native American and, if so, contacted the Native American Heritage Commission.

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

- Would the project:

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 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. The Bay Area is located in a seismically active region that has historically experienced a number of strong earthquakes. A network of active faults have generated moderate to strong earthquakes in the Bay Area, including the Refinery. There are no known active faults beneath the Refinery site but several in the vicinity (California Geologic Survey, 2010a). The San Pablo fault runs parallel to and along the east side of the San Pablo Peninsula but is an inactive fault and has shown no evidence of displacement in the last 1.6 million years. The nearest active fault is the Hayward fault, four miles to the east-northeast. The Hayward fault trends to the northwest within the East Bay, extending from San Pablo Bay in Richmond, 60 miles south to San Jose.

The US Geologic Survey produces the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast which provides probabilities for California quakes. The Forecast predicts the highest probability of an earthquake in the Bay area for the Hayward-Rodgers Creek Faults system, with a probability of 31% for a large quake occurring by 2036 (USGS, 2008). Other known faults near the Refinery include the San Andreas Fault, the Calaveras Fault and the Rodgers Creek Fault. The overall probability for one or more magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring by 2036 is 63%.

The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Zone, as designated by the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and the risk of ground rupture at the site is less-than-significant. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Strong ground shaking from a major earthquake could affect the Richmond area during the next 30 years. Earthquakes could produce a range of ground shaking intensities at the Refinery as ground shaking may affect areas hundreds of miles distant from the earthquake’s epicenter. Appropriate grading and design, in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) and best engineering practices, will be used to reduce the effects of ground shaking on structures and infrastructure. A design level geotechnical investigation will be performed for each of the tank site areas in order to obtain grading or construction permits. The analyses will be in accordance with the most recent version of the CBC, which requires structural design that can accommodate ground accelerations expected from known active faults.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Liquefaction is the sudden temporary loss of shear strength in saturated, poorly consolidated sediments subjected to ground shaking. 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. The Refinery is underlain by unconsolidated and semi-consolidated alluvium, lake, playa and terrace deposits and includes marine deposits near the coast (California Geological Survey, 2010b). Portions of the Refinery that may be at risk due to the effects of liquefaction include areas that are underlain by unconsolidated or artificial fill sediments. Hazard maps produced by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) depict liquefaction hazards for the entire Bay Area in the event of a significant seismic event (ABAG, 2009). According to these maps, the Refinery site is in an area expected to have a very low to very high potential to experience liquefaction. The specific locations of the proposed tanks show very low to low susceptibility for liquefaction. Therefore the impact of liquefaction or other seismic-related ground failure on the Tank Replacement Project would be less-than-significant.

iv) Landslides? Landslides can be triggered during seismic activity. Landslides can occur on slopes of 15 percent or less; however, the probability is greater on steeper slopes, with unconsolidated deposits most likely to experience failure. The replacement petroleum tanks will be located on bedrock within the flat land areas of the Refinery. Four of the petroleum storage tanks (T-3228, T-3231, T-3232, T-3233) are located less than 100- feet from gently sloping bedrock hillsides that have no history of sliding and are unlikely to do so in the future. The fifth petroleum tank (T-3229) is located in a Refinery process area with no hillsides in the vicinity. The Quarry Firewater Tank will require minimal hillside excavation and will have a foundation area that is graded, compacted and supported by piles. The excavation, grading and engineering will be in accordance with the CBC and best engineering practices. Thus the potential for impacts from landsides will be less than significant.

Comment to Questions VIa(i) – (iv)

A number of older tank structures will be replaced with new tank structures that meet newer seismic standards. This would be considered as an overall beneficial impact regarding structural integrity. With foundation and structural design in accordance with the current California Building Code (CBC) standards, seismic shaking, liquefaction, and landslides should not result in significant structural damage. Therefore all impacts listed above would be less-than-significant.

See also Mitigation Measure VIc, below.

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Comment to Question VIb: According to the Soil Conservation Service, the Project area consists of Conejo clay loams and Millsholm loam, (USDA, 2010). The Conejo loams consist of clay loams that originate from sedimentary rock and have a slight erosion potential. The steeper upland areas of the Refinery are mapped as Millsholm loams which can also include softer bedrock but overall have a high erosion hazard. The erosion potential for soils is variable throughout the tank site areas.

Impact VIb: Cut-and-fill grading at the Quarry Firewater Tank site has the potential to alter hillside drainage and increase erosion.

Mitigation Measure VIb: An erosion control plan incorporating a final landscaping plan will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit for the Quarry Firewater Tank site. No grading permit will be issued until the City Engineer, or his or her designee, approves the erosion control plan’s measures for reducing all impacts to less than significant. c) 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 landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

Comment to Question VIc: The replacement petroleum tanks would be placed in areas that are already developed with refinery facilities. The areas have no known geologic units or soils that are unstable or that would become unstable as a result of replacing the tanks.

The Firewater tank will be located in an undeveloped hillside portion of the refinery and have a pier supported foundation. Though there are no known unstable soils or geologic units at the Firewater tank site, there may be a potential for landslide or collapse that will be addressed through design-level geotechnical investigation.

Impact VIc: The geology and soils of the Firewater tank site may be unstable under certain conditions or may become unstable as a result of the project.

Mitigation Measure VIc: A design-level geotechnical and soils report will evaluate each new tank location for the presence of unstable geologic units or soils. All measures recommended in the report will be incorporated into the project to ensure a less-than-significant impact related to geologic or soil instability.

See Comments to Questions VIa(i)-(iv) above. 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?

Comment to Question VId: Each tank site will be evaluated for expansive soils in accordance with the most recent building code requirements. The site-specific geotechnical investigation for each tank will include recommendations to mitigate any potential hazards associated with expansive soils, if any. (See Mitigation Measure VIc.) The reports will be in accordance with applicable City ordinances and policies for grading and will be consistent with the most recent version of the California Building Code. Compliance with applicable codes and regulations will ensure that this impact would be less-than-significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of

septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

Comment to Question VIe: The Refinery is served by its own wastewater system. Septic tanks will not be used and thus, there is no impact.

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Comment to Question VIIa:

GHG emissions are quantified in units of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which is a summation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and emissions of other GHGs such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), each weighted relative to the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2. Once emitted, GHGs mix in the global atmosphere and can persist for many years. The typical GWP values used in GHG assessments represent a 100-year atmospheric residence time. Thus, emissions of CO2e anywhere on the planet contribute to global CO2e concentrations. GHG emissions can occur directly from the actions of a project (e.g., increased fuel usage) or indirectly, for example from increased purchased electricity.

Construction of the new tanks would involve use of fossil-fueled vehicles and equipment. GHG emissions from construction activities were estimated by URBEMIS to be 865 metric tonnes of CO2e per year (MTPY), which is equivalent to a total of 4,738 MTPY CO2e over the 47-month construction period. The URBEMIS output files are included in Appendix A.

During operation of the tanks, materials will be transferred to and from the tanks using electrically powered pumps. Although electrical power in California is increasingly generated by renewable energy sources, most electricity is generated by fossil fuels such as natural gas; therefore, GHGs are generated to produce electricity. However, the tank replacements will not result in a quantifiable net increase in Refinery electrical load because the five new petroleum tanks are replacing currently operating tanks. The new firewater tank would be initially filled, which requires use of electricity for pumping, but then only used infrequently on an emergency basis, and therefore its operation would not be measurable against the routine electrical consumption within the Refinery. Filling the tank will require utilizing a 400 Hp pump for 24-hours. This temporary increase in electrical demand will increase GHG emissions by less than 3 MTPY CO2e.

As stated above, GHG emissions due to project construction are estimated to be 865 MTPY. Less than 3 MTPY CO2e in operational emissions related to the new Firewater Tank are anticipated. The project’s construction-related GHG emissions would be temporary, and would cease after the 47-month construction period following completion of construction of the replacement tanks. The BAAQMD has not proposed or adopted a quantitative threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. However, the July 2010 Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2010a) recommend that a project’s construction-related GHG emissions should be quantified, and that the lead agency should attempt to make a significance determination in the absence of a numeric significance threshold. For comparative purposes, the construction-phase GHG emissions are well below the BAAQMD’s June 2, 2010 significance criterion of 10,000 MTPY CO2e for operational emissions from a proposed stationary source. In addition the operational GHG emissions from filling the Firewater Tank are less than 3 MTPY CO2e. Accordingly, both construction-phase and operational GHG emissions would be less-than-significant.

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Comment to Question VIIb: Construction and operation of the tanks will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

- Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? Comment to Question VIIIa-VIIIb: The Refinery currently operates approximately 300 tanks to handle various raw materials, intermediates, byproducts, and final products as well as many other tanks containing non-petroleum materials. Materials stored in the petroleum tanks range from light higher volatility materials such as motor gasoline to heavy nonvolatile materials such as lube oils and tar-like materials. Refinery tanks are designed and maintained to Chevron and industry consensus standards such as: the American Petroleum Institute, 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. Such design standards are routinely evaluated and revised as necessary to improve safety and reliability. Whenever new facilities are built, they must meet these improved design codes and industry standards. Environmental regulations, primarily from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) or the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) also impose design considerations which require new tanks to meet lower emission levels of organic vapors especially for materials that have higher vapor pressures (such as gasoline).

The five petroleum storage tanks to be installed will have a combined total capacity of 541,000 barrels, compared to the five existing tanks being replaced which have a combined capacity of 366,000 barrels. The overall inventory of hazardous materials at the Refinery will increase by about 175,000 barrels, or approximately 1.1% over the baseline of approximately 16 million barrels of tank storage capacity currently at the Refinery.

The types of materials handled in the new tanks would be the same as materials handled in the existing tanks. However, the five new tanks will be designed to improved standards and are therefore expected to decrease the risk of catastrophic failure and accidental release.

Materials stored in the replacement tanks are liquid petroleum hydrocarbons of various characteristics, including the following:

• Recovered Oil (material of variable composition and low vapor pressure): Currently stored in tank T- 3076 • Tetramer (a relatively thick material with very low vapor pressure): Currently stored in tank T-956 and other tanks. • Cutter (a diesel fuel-type material that is blended into fuel oil to reduce viscosity): Currently stored in T-979 • Aviation Gasoline (gasoline for piston-driven aircraft): Currently stored in T-3075 and other tanks • Motor Gasoline (motor vehicle gasoline): Currently stored in T-634 and other tanks

Impact VIIIb: During tank construction and to a lesser degree demolition, soils will be disturbed for grading and transporting raw materials, equipment, and work crews into the tank areas. Although soil grading would be expected to be relatively shallow, any soil disturbed within the Refinery has the potential to be impacted

by historical hydrocarbon contamination.

Mitigation Measure VIIIb: Chevron follows standard protocols in the Yellow Book, which is a detailed procedure developed by Chevron to ensure that sampling and characterization of soil that will be disturbed or excavated is performed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. These procedures include pre-sampling of soils that will be excavated to determine if they would be hazardous materials, hazardous waste or would require regulated management or special handling for other reasons, such as the existence of a designated waste. If graded or excavated soil meets the characteristics of a hazardous material (which includes hazardous waste), the soil would be properly handled and transported off site, in nominally 20 cubic yard trucks. If the soil is hazardous waste, disposal will be at a properly licensed Class I hazardous waste landfill or a non-hazardous waste industrial landfill if it is a non-hazardous waste. After excavation, and prior to off-site disposal, all soil will be managed appropriately on site including labeling for hazardous wastes and Department of Transportation (DOT) marking or placarding, if applicable. All shipments of soil will be recorded on uniform hazardous waste manifests or Bills of Lading. Compliance with Yellow Book protocols will reduce risk of accidental release of hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level.

Larger tanks would create the potential for a higher fire risk. The largest tank to be added is 150,000 barrels, which is less than one-half the size of the largest motor gasoline tank in the Refinery and less than one-fourth the size of the largest crude oil storage tank in the Refinery. Compared to existing conditions, there would be no perceptible increase in fire fighting challenges presented by the new tanks, and fire response could be handled by the Chevron Fire Department operated by the Plant Protection Department of the Richmond Refinery. The City of Richmond Fire Department could be requested to provide additional fire and emergency medical response when called upon by Chevron. In addition, the Quarry Firewater Tank and related system reliability improvements will enhance fire fighting capabilities in that area of 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 would occur. If a tank were to leak, petroleum materials would accumulate in the secondary containment dike surrounding the tank. If this pool of liquid around the tank were to be ignited it is considered a pool fire. The impact distance for a pool fire is determined by the thermal (infrared) energy released by the fire. For planning purposes in the Risk Management Program, US EPA considers impacts from the source of a pool fire out to a distance where the thermal flux is 5,000 Watts per square meter (W/m2). The distance to this thermal endpoint was determined for tank containment berm pool fires for the proposed new tanks at the Chevron Refinery using the ALOHA model (2007). The distance to the thermal endpoint was determined to be approximately 741 feet (225 meters) which remains within Refinery property for all tanks.

In the unlikely event that a tank fire occurs, the Refinery would reduce the fire risk by the use of the existing mobile foam fire suppression system. The capacity of the foam fire suppression system is sized to accommodate the bermed secondary containment area surrounding the tanks and is part of the existing equipment regularly maintained by the Chevron Fire Department. When mixed as recommended with water, the foam is effective in controlling and extinguishing petroleum fires. This would serve to reduce both the size and duration of any fires. Therefore, any fire-related impacts that may occur associated with routine or reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions will be less-than-significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

Comment to Question VIIIc: The tanks would lie entirely within the existing Refinery and would not be within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

Comment to Question VIIId: The Refinery is not listed on the Cortese List (Government Code Section 65962.5) and the Project would not 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 or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

Comment to Question VIIIe-VIIIf: The proposed tank sites are not within an airport land use plan and are not within two miles of a public airport or private airstrip.

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Comment to Question VIIIg: Upon completion of the Tank Replacements, the Refinery would have the same number of petroleum tanks and no increase in Refinery footprint, so there would be no impact on emergency response plans.

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Comment to Question VIIIh: The proposed tanks would be located entirely within the Refinery site. Due to the nature of petroleum refineries, fires are a recognized danger. (See Comment to Question VIIIa-VIIIb, above.) Vegetation management and other programs are implemented at the Refinery to reduce the potential vegetative fuel loading to minimize fire risks. Accordingly, there would be no added exposure to wildland fire hazards.

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Comment to Question IXa: Refinery storage tanks may collect water from condensation, small amounts of water carried with the product placed into the tanks, and rain water from faulty tank seals or roof drain line leaks. Because water has a higher specific gravity than most petroleum materials, the water collects on the bottom of the tank. Water is removed occasionally (called a water draw) and is routed to the Refinery wastewater treatment system. Tank water draws are a very small contributor to the overall Refinery process wastewater flows. The Quarry Firewater Tank will contain treated Refinery water, which otherwise would be discharged from the Refinery into San Pablo Bay. When the tank water is used, water will be discharged directly to the ground, which will be absorbed into the soil or flow into the Refinery drainage channels.

The effluent wastewater at the Refinery is regulated under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the RWQCB (No. CA0005134). The permit identifies 23 distinct wastewater streams with 10 identified outfalls as well as several other drainage channels. The Refinery process wastewater has a permitted discharge rate of about 20 million gallons per day (mgd).

Storm water flows related to the Project are also governed by the Refinery NPDES permit with some streams being routed to the Refinery wastewater treatment plant and others discharged directly to the waters of San Francisco Bay and/or San Pablo Bay. Prior to any direct discharge of impound basins to the Bay, the NPDES permit specifies sampling programs and qualitative permit limits.

The tanks will have a negligible effect on the amount of wastewater generated from tank water draws, because there will be five new petroleum tanks replacing five existing tanks and the tank roof designs of the new tanks will be more secure (either domed tanks with internal floating roofs or new floating roof seals and drain lines) than the existing tanks and will minimize storm water entering the tanks. Furthermore, tank water draws are a very small percentage of Refinery process water flows. Therefore a less-than- significant impact is expected.

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

Comment to Question IXb: The tanks will have no effect on groundwater supplies or recharge. The firewater tank is filled with treated Refinery water which would otherwise be discharged to the Bay.

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

Comment to Question IXc-IXd: The five new petroleum tanks will replace five existing tanks within the existing tank farm areas, and the area of the new firewater tank will be graded to allow drainage from the site to follow natural, existing local topographic features so that drainage patterns will not be altered and will not affect the probability of erosion, siltation or flooding. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Comment to Question IXe: Although site grading and tank construction will be sources of construction-impacted storm water, the water quality impacts from this storm water runoff is expected to be minimal because of the implementation of construction storm water Best Management Practices. At the Refinery, storm water is also governed by the Waste Discharge Requirements specified in the NPDES permit and regulated by the San Francisco RWQCB. Construction of the five new petroleum storage tanks will not cause any change in the quantity or quality of storm water runoff from the tank fields nor affect existing drainage, which is adequate for Refinery operations. Construction of the Quarry Firewater Tank will add approximately 14,600 square-feet of impervious surface (the storage tank footprint) but runoff from the area does not flow into the Refinery's drainage system because it flows naturally from the site to the west. Normal runoff from the Quarry Firewater Tank site will be absorbed into the hillside on the Refinery property. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Comment to Question IXf: The tanks will not otherwise contribute to substantially degrading water quality. All petroleum tanks will include secondary containment with sufficient capacity to prevent spills onto soil, seepage into groundwater, and runoff into the San Francisco Bay.

Impact IXf: During tank construction and related activities, previously unknown abandoned wells (water, environmental, or geotechnical) or septic tanks may be discovered.

Mitigation Measure IXf: If abandoned wells (water, environmental, or geotechnical) or septic tanks are discovered in the course of construction or other activities, Chevron shall clearly mark the discovery, keep the area secure, and obtain a permit from the Contra Costa Environmental Health Division (CCEHD) and destroy the well and/or septic tank pursuant to CCEHD requirements. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

Comment to Question IXg-IXh: The tanks will not involve any housing and other structures will not be placed within the 100-year flood hazard area.

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

Comment to Question IXi: The tanks will not expose people or structures to risk of loss or death from flooding. Although the single largest petroleum tank contains 150,000 barrels, no dam-failure-type impacts are expected because Chevron will comply with federal, state, and local regulations to properly protect the tanks from releases. Consistent with these requirements, Chevron will update its existing Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan under Title 40 of Code of Federal Regulations, Section 112.7 to incorporate the new petroleum tanks. The potential impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level due to several factors. The tanks will be regularly inspected and maintained according to required schedules as set forth in American Petroleum Institute Standard 653 (API-653), “Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction”. Each petroleum tank will also be located within existing secondary containment that is capable of accommodating the full contents of the tank plus sufficient allowance for storm water, and each tank will be included in Chevron's emergency response procedures.

The Quarry Firewater tank will not have a secondary containment dike. Due to its location (see Figure 1-1), a release of the full tank contents would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. A release of water would follow the natural topography in the area, flowing in a generally westerly direction. Except in the unlikely event of a sudden catastrophic rupture, any release of water from the Firewater tank would flow in natural depressions, seeping into the ground as it flows. In the event of a sudden catastrophic release of the full contents of the tank, water would ultimately collect in an existing basin between the Quarry area and Western Drive with sufficient capacity to hold the full contents of the tank with an allowance for rainfall.

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Comment to Question IXj: Because the tanks will be located approximately at least 800 feet from the San Francisco Bay which is a sheltered Bay in this area about 12 miles from the Golden Gate strait and will be on land elevated by more than 10 feet above mean sea level, tsunami, seiche or mud flow hazards are not anticipated.

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING

- Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community?

Comment to Question Xa: The replacement of existing storage tanks and installation of a new firewater tank are within the boundaries of the Refinery and will not expand the Refinery’s perimeter boundary or affect the existing buffer between existing operations and the Refinery’s eastern and southern boundaries. The Point Richmond area is located south of the Refinery, and is separated by roadways and other Refinery uses from the tanks. Thus, the tanks will have no impact that would physically divide any established communities.

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Comment to Question Xb: The petroleum tanks will be constructed in areas designated Heavy Industry in the City of Richmond General Plan and zoned Heavy Industry (M-3) in the City of Richmond Zoning Ordinance. The new firewater tank will be located in an area with a General Plan Land Use designation of Recreation and zoned Community and Regional Recreation (CRR). Petroleum refining and related industries are conditionally permitted in the M-3 zoning district and storage tank farms adjacent to industrial uses are conditionally permitted uses in the CRR district if adjacent to industrial uses

Chevron must obtain a Conditional Use Permit for the project. The Planning Commission, upon recommendation from the Design Review Board, may impose conditions specifying how the tanks will comply with Performance Standards of the Zoning Ordinance related to location and color of tanks, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping and buffering the facilities from neighboring properties. Compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and all conditions of approval will ensure that the Project has no impact that conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

Comment to Question Xc: There are no adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans for the Refinery or its surroundings. The project will have no impact in this subject area.

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES

- Would the project:

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?

Comment to Question XIa: The Refinery has operated on this site for over 100 years and there are no known mineral resources at the site that have not yet been exploited.

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Comment to Question XIb: The Refinery is not designated by the City of Richmond General Plan as a significant mineral resource area. As stated above, the area of the Refinery where the tanks will be constructed is already dedicated to Refinery operations. Thus, the construction and operation of the tanks would not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site.

XII. NOISE

- Would the project 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?

Comment to Question XIIa-XIId: The ambient noise environment at the Project site is dominated by existing operations at the Refinery, traffic on I-580, and rail activity along the Union Pacific Railway tracks. Noise measurements were taken in June 2005 by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) in the residential neighborhood of Point Richmond at the corner of Tewksbury Avenue and Marine Street. (See Technical Appendix). This monitoring location is relatively close to the tank locations. This community is located adjacent to the I-580 freeway, and ambient noise levels are already generally high.

ESA reported that the noise environment at this location was mainly dominated by traffic on I-580, which is located to the east at a lower elevation. Noise from the Refinery was barely audible to the monitoring technician over the traffic noise. However, while the Refinery noise is fairly constant, noise from the freeway changes over the day. The daytime maximum average reading over an hour was 82 decibels (dBA).

Chevron proposes to construct five replacement petroleum storage tanks and one new firewater tank. The new tanks will be connected to existing pumps and process equipment, so no additional noise generating equipment will be installed to operate the new petroleum tanks. The installation of the five new petroleum tanks will not require driven piles. Since construction is planned only for the daytime hours, it is not necessary to address night time noise, to which most people are more sensitive.

Mobile construction equipment such as cranes, welders, and demolition equipment will generate daytime noise during construction. Such equipment can generate noise at a level of about 85 dbA at 50-feet from the source. At the residential receptors located about 2,000 feet away, the noise would attenuate to 53 dBA. The noise decibel scale is logarithmic so a 3 dBA increase doubles the sound energy and a 10dBA change is a tenfold change in sound energy. Using the principles of noise addition on the logarithmic scale, addition of 53 dBA to the existing ambient noise level at the residential receptors of 82 dBA would cause no net increase in perceived noise at the residential receptors and the noise level will remain 82 dBA. (Sound energy more than 10 dBA lower than another source, will not add to the sound energy of the higher noise source). [CCOHS 2010]

The Quarry Firewater Tank will have piles to support the entire tank foundation. Groundborne vibration from pile driving will be generated during construction of the firewater tank. Although this tank will be located on the western side of the Refinery, farthest from residential uses, the vibration could be perceptible if conducted when there were little or no activity on I-580.

Impact XIIb: Groundborne vibration from pile-driving at the Quarry Firewater Tank site could be perceptible

in the residential area of Point Richmond.

Mitigation Measure XIIb: Pile driving activities for the Quarry Firewater Tank site shall be limited to daytime hours between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays, and shall not occur during weekends and state or federal holidays. This is consistent with the City's Noise Ordinance under Chapter 9.52 of the City of Richmond Municipal Code. 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? 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?

Comment to Question XIIe- XIIf: The tank sites are not within an airport land use plan and are not within two miles of a public airport or private airstrip.

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING

- Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

Comment to Question XIIIa: The tank construction will require a maximum of 30 workers per day during four months out of the 47- month overall construction schedule, and more frequently, 20 workers per day. Based on past experience, it is anticipated that the construction workforce will be drawn from the local construction labor pool. All current Bay Area residents would be expected to live in or commute rather than moving to Richmond. Therefore, the construction of the tanks would have no impact on population or housing in Richmond or the Bay Area. Operationally, no new permanent employees would be added. Thus, the construction and operation of the tanks would not result in a substantial population growth in the area.

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?

Comment to Question XIIIb-XIIIc: The tanks will be constructed entirely on Refinery property, and will not displace any housing or people or necessitate the construction of replacement housing. Demolition of the existing tanks and construction of new tank, therefore, will have no impact on population and housing.

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES

- Would the project:

Would the 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 any of the public services: a) Fire protection?

Comment to Question XIVa: Chevron follows nationally recognized fire prevention standards. These include, but are not limited to, those of the American Petroleum Institute, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Building Code, and National Fire Protection Association. The Refinery Fire Department also conducts fire prevention inspections and audits, and reviews all plans for new construction or modifications to ensure all recognized fire prevention codes and standards are being followed.

Tank construction could result in a very slight increase in the number of calls to the Refinery Fire Department, and possibly more assistance calls for medical emergencies. However, Chevron implements rigorous safety procedures in accordance with OSHA's Process Safety Management Standards (29 CFR 1910.119, "Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals") which its contractors are required to follow, and should reduce the potential and severity of fire and medical emergencies. In addition, standard fire-watch procedures required during welding and other similar work in the Refinery are designed to catch and eliminate fires in the formative stage. The Refinery’s fire station can accommodate any increases in emergency calls resulting from construction; thus, there would be a no impact on City fire protection resources because no additional assistance from the Richmond Fire Department is anticipated to be needed.

The Refinery Fire Department is operated by The Plant Protection Department of the Richmond Refinery. It consists of 30 uniformed personnel. This organization is supplemented by a 75-person volunteer fire brigade. All of these people are trained to deal with emergencies associated with an oil refinery. The Department has 21 vehicles equipped to respond to fire emergencies.

The City of Richmond Fire Department responds to fire and emergency medical events at the Refinery only when called by the Chevron Fire Department. This happens six or fewer times per year. When called, the Richmond Fire Department responds with three engines, one truck, and a Battalion Chief. In most instances in which the City Fire Department is called, it serves to stand by a Chevron Fire Station while Chevron firefighters are handling the emergency. Over the last ten years the City Fire Department has actually helped control an emergency on five occasions (Ayers, 2005). The City of Richmond Fire Department consists of 33 84 firefighters (City of Richmond Fire Department, 2010).

During operation, the tanks would result in no additional demands on the Richmond Fire Department because the replacement tanks will be built in existing tank fields, will be newer and built according to updated codes, and will serve the same functions as the tanks they are replacing. There are potential fire hazards associated with the storage of petroleum byproducts. However, the existing infrastructure is more than adequate to accommodate any fire risk that may occur as a result of the tank replacements. Additionally, the construction of the new firewater tank would improve fire response capabilities at the Quarry Tank Farm area, and provide additional water capacity for the entire Refinery firewater system. (See Comment to Question VIIIa-VIIIb, above.)

Since the City of Richmond Fire Department only provides infrequent, limited response several times per year to the Chevron Refinery, and the vast majority of emergencies are handled by the on-site Chevron

Fire Department, the impact to public fire protection services is expected to be less-than-significant.

b) Police protection? Comment to Question XIVb: Construction and operation of the proposed tanks will not expand the Refinery’s property boundary or modify the security needs of the facility. The current security staff and structure are adequate for securing the Refinery property. There will be no increase in permanent employees and thus no impact on the Richmond Police Department.

The Plant Protection Department of the Refinery handles security response for the Refinery. Plant Protection is responsible for maintaining access control into and out of the Refinery; conducting internal traffic control; investigating internal motor vehicle accidents, thefts, drug and alcohol cases; and conducting contraband inspections. c) Schools? Comment to Question XIVc: Construction and operation of the tanks would not result in an increase in need for public schools. The Refinery is located in the Washington Elementary Attendance Area, which feeds to Portola Middle School, and Kennedy High School. Because the existing local labor pool is anticipated to be adequate for the construction activities, and adequate numbers of construction workers currently reside within commuting distance, there would be no increase in the use of public schools. d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? Comment to Question XIVd-XIVe: Public facilities in the community include medical facilities, libraries, parks and trails. There is one hospital located in Richmond, which is the 50-bed Kaiser Foundation Hospital, Richmond Campus, at 901 Nevin Avenue. However, there are eight hospitals in Contra Costa County, and the next closest hospital is the Doctors Hospital of San Pablo. The closest library is the Point Richmond Branch of the Richmond Public Library. Parks and trails are discussed in the Section XV Recreation below.

Construction and operation of the tanks would not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the area. Because the existing local labor pool is anticipated to be adequate for the construction activities, and adequate numbers of construction workers currently reside within commuting distance of the project site, there would be no expected increase in use of existing hospital or library services.

XV. RECREATION

- Would the project: a) Would the project 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?

Comment to Question XVa:

Several regional, neighborhood, and recreational facilities are located near the Refinery. The regional parks within approximately five miles of the Project site include:

• Brooks Island. 373-acre Brooks Island in San Francisco Bay is located to the south of the project site just off the Richmond Inner Harbor. The Island is open for limited group guided tours and provides hiking trails and field archery ranges.

• Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline. This 295-acre area, located about 1 mile south of the project site, includes a shoreline picnic area and swimming beach area on Dornan Drive in Point Richmond.

• Point Isabel. Point Isabel is a 21-acre landscaped park, located about 4 miles to the southeast of the project site at the west end of Central Avenue in Richmond. Amenities include jogging trails and picnic areas.

• Point Pinole Regional Shoreline. Point Pinole is a 2,315-acre parkland, located approximately 4 miles to the northeast of the project site next to the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, and Pinole. The park includes hiking, bicycling, and horse trails and a 1,250- foot fishing pier.

• Tilden Park. Tilden Park is a 2,077-acre regional park that provides amenities such as pony rides, a carousel, hiking trails, swimming, picnicking, a botanical garden, a golf course, a nature area and farm. Tilden Park is located to the east of the project site in the Berkeley Hills.

• Wildcat Canyon. Wildcat Canyon Regional Park is a 2,428-acre park that has hiking, biking, and equestrian trails, and picnic facilities. It is located to the northeast of the project site to the north of Tilden Park.

Neighborhood parks and facilities within the vicinity of the Refinery include:

• Atchison Park (4.3 acres), located approximately 0.5 miles to the east of the project site at Bissell Avenue and Curry Street.

• Washington Park (2.51 acres), located approximately 0.5 miles to the southeast of the project site at 110 E. Richmond Avenue at Garrard Boulevard.

• Nevin Park and Community Center (4.38 acres), located approximately 1 mile to the east of the project site at 598 Nevin Avenue at 6th Street.

• Lucas Park (7.14 acres), located approximately 1.25 miles to the northeast of the project site at the terminus of Lucas Avenue near 10th Street (City of Richmond, 1994a).

An average of 10 construction workers per day for approximately four years is expected for the tanks construction with an additional 10 workers for the Quarry Firewater Tank over about 12 months. A portion of these workers could, at times after work, temporarily increase the usage of local parks or the

proposed segments of the Bay Trail along Western Drive. Because most construction workers would enter the Refinery at Gate 91 on the east site of the Refinery, it is unlikely that construction workers would use any of the proposed Bay Trail segments to the west of the Refinery. Due to the minimal number of workers that could potentially use recreational facilities, the construction and operation of the tanks would have no impact that could result in substantial physical deterioration of the existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities.

Because the tanks would be constructed entirely on Refinery property and well away from the public shoreline of the Bay, the replacement tanks and the firewater tank would not conflict with existing recreational uses or potential future uses such as the Bay Trail, which is located along the shoreline.

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Comment to Question XVb: Construction and operation of the tanks would not affect, involve, or include any parks or recreational facilities, nor would the project require the expansion or construction of any recreational facility.

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

- Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Comment to Question XVIa-XVIb: The proposed Project construction schedule provided in Table 1-2 shows that two tanks would be under construction at any one time during the majority of the construction phase, which typically requires a total of 20 workers (10 workers per tank). There are a total of four months out of the 47-month construction schedule during which one tank will be in the final month or two of construction, another in the middle of its construction, and the third tank just commencing construction. During these periods, the construction workforce will be at its peak of 30 workers (10 workers for each of three tanks).

Based on standard construction shift schedule of 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM, all workers would be expected to arrive and depart prior to the weekday AM and PM peak periods, defined as 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM, respectively. As construction worker vehicle trips would not occur during either the AM peak hour or the PM peak hour, there would be no addition of construction-related trips to the adjacent roadways and intersection during the AM and PM peak periods. Therefore, there would be no degradation to peak hour serviceability of adjacent roadways and intersections, and peak hour capacity analyses of roadways and intersection are not required.

In addition to construction workers driving to the project site, material deliveries of tank construction materials will occur. According to the anticipated delivery schedule for each tank, four deliveries (four inbound and four outbound truck trips) per day would occur for the first four weeks; and two deliveries (two inbound and two outbound truck trips) per week would occur for the subsequent eight weeks (Weeks 5 through 12). For conservative analysis purposes, one delivery (one inbound and one outbound truck trip) per day was assumed to occur for the subsequent eight weeks (Weeks 13 thorough 20). All delivery trips were also assumed to occur using larger trucks, with a Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) factor of 2.0, This translates to a maximum of eight inbound and eight outbound daily delivery vehicle trips during the construction period.

The projected construction related vehicle trips to and from the Project site, resulting from construction worker vehicle trips and material delivery vehicle trips, are summarized below in Table 2-6.

Table 2-6 Summary of Chevron Richmond Refinery Project Construction Related Vehicle Trips

Daily Vehicle-Trips

Delivery Trucks and Vans Total Construction Period Construction (1) Number of Passenger Car (3) Vehicle/PCE- (Month) Workers (4) Trucks/Vans Equivalent (PCE)(2) Trips In Out In Out In Out In Out 1 8 8 16 16 20 20 36 36 12 4 4 8 8 30 30 38 38 16 5 5 10 10 30 30 40 40 24 4 4 8 8 20 20 28 28 35 4 4 8 8 20 20 28 28

Notes: 1. The month of construction (e.g. Month 1 is start of construction; Month 47 is last month of construction). 2. Each truck has a passenger car equivalent (PCE) of 2. 3. Maximum number of construction workers needed during this period. 4. Most months will have 20 to 24 PCE trips per day.

Deliveries occurring between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM or between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM would coincide with the AM and PM peak hour traffic and could temporarily impede traffic, although it would not be considered a significant impact. Limiting truck movements to hours outside the AM and PM peak traffic times (7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM) would minimize disruption of the general traffic flow on adjacent roadways and intersections during the AM and PM peak periods.

Combined, the construction worker vehicle trips for the construction of the tanks and the delivery vehicle trips for the tank shell components would result in a maximum of 40 inbound and 40 outbound daily vehicle trips. This would occur only during Month 16 of construction where T-3229 is finishing construction; T-3233 is in Month 5 of construction (one delivery per day assumed); and the Quarry Firewater Tank has just started construction (4 deliveries per day). Based on Chevron data at the security gates, normally every day Chevron has about 2,500 vehicle trips in and out and 336 truck trips in and out. Using the same basis as above, this represents one-way PCE trips. The construction activity-related vehicle trips represents about one percent of the routine trips reported by Chevron to the Chevron Refinery and Research Center facilities in Richmond and would not have a significant impact.

Impact XVIb-1: Truck deliveries during peak commute hours could add to congestion on area roadways.

Mitigation Measure XVIb-1: Truck deliveries for the Tank Replacement Project shall be limited to occur outside of the AM peak period (6:00 AM - 9:00 AM) or PM peak period (4:00 PM - 6:00 PM).

Impact XVIb-2: Although the Tank Replacements will represent a very small increase in the number of construction worker vehicles and trucks compared to routine worker and truck trips into the Chevron Richmond complex, construction-related vehicle trips could increase congestion on nearby streets and will increase the demand for parking at or near the Refinery.

Mitigation Measure XVIb-2: Chevron and the construction contractor shall develop a construction traffic management plan to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic congestion and the effects of parking demand by construction workers during construction of this project and other nearby projects that could be simultaneously under construction. The construction traffic management plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Building Services Department and the Engineering Department prior to commencement of construction. The plan should consider the following items and requirements:

• A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes; • Provision for accommodation of pedestrian flow; and • Provision for parking management and spaces for all construction workers to ensure that construction workers do not park in on-street spaces.

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?

Comment to Question XVIc: Construction and operation of the tanks will not cause any change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. The tank structures will not be taller than other tanks and other structures throughout the Refinery and the cranes used during construction will not extend higher than other Refinery structures.

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Comment to Question XVId: Construction and operation of the tanks will not increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment), because construction and operation of the tanks will not require alteration or redesign of existing roads or a significant change in use of existing roads. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Comment to Question XVIe: Construction and operation of the Tank Replacements Project would not change existing emergency access routes or measurably increase the need for emergency access. Roads within the Refinery will continue to be maintained to allow adequate emergency access.

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

Comment to Question XVIf: The Project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The Richmond General Plan and the Richmond Bicycle Master Plan promote alternative modes of transportation. The proposed project will not conflict with either of these plans because the increase in traffic will be entirely related to construction, will be temporary, and will not conflict with any alternative transportation facilities.

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

- Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Comment to Question XVIIa: No impact on wastewater treatment volume is expected from the construction and operation of the tanks. The replacement of five existing tanks with five modern tanks, including two with domed roofs, is likely to reduce tank wastewater flows to the Refinery treatment system. Such tank wastewater flows are very small compared to the overall Refinery wastewater process flow. The firewater tank would not generate wastewater but will instead create a reservoir of treated wastewater that would otherwise be discharged in the San Pablo Bay.

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? Comment to Question XVIIb-XVIIc: Construction and operation of the tanks will not require any construction of new wastewater treatment or storm water drainage systems, or expansion of existing facilities.

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which 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? Comment to Question XVIId-XVIIe: Construction and operation of the tanks will not change the overall demand for water or for wastewater treatment in the Refinery. (See Comment to Question VIIIa, above.)

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Comment to Question XVIIf-XVIIg: Although waste solids are expected on the bottoms of tanks to be taken out of service, these solids are generally processed to recover as much oil as possible for recycling, thereby reducing waste volume. Resulting wastes are then managed appropriately as federal hazardous wastes, California-only hazardous wastes, or non-hazardous wastes. The majority of material resulting from demolition of tanks will be steel which will be recycled. Any other smaller amounts of non-steel demolition debris, estimated to be less than

five tons per year, will be properly characterized to determine if it is hazardous or non-hazardous waste and managed accordingly.

Tank construction will also generate small amounts of construction-related wastes such as: spent welding rods, construction trash, batteries from tools and communication devices, paint related materials, construction material packing wastes (e.g. paint cans, wire spools, etc.), and construction vehicle waste oil and filters. Combined, these wastes are estimated to total about two tons per year. All construction-related wastes will be recycled if possible, but if not, characterized as federal hazardous wastes, California-only hazardous wastes, or non-hazardous wastes, and managed accordingly.

Construction and demolition hazardous waste is estimated to be about seven tons per year. This is negligible amount compared to the 5,000 to 8,000 tons of hazardous waste typically generated per year at the Chevron Refinery and can easily be managed by existing landfills and will have a less-than-significant impact.

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

- Would the project:

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐ sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Comment to Question XVIIIa: Construction and operation of the tanks would result in impacts to biological and cultural resources that are less-than-significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The proposed sites for the replacement and new tanks do not provide habitat for special status species, and thus the Project is unlikely to have any impact any endangered, rare or threatened species or communities. The construction of the tanks will not impact any riparian, wetlands or waters in the vicinity of the Refinery.

The proposed sites are within currently developed areas of the operating Refinery. While there is a remote potential for cultural resources to be excavated during the construction of the replacement and new tanks, the activity would not eliminate examples of major periods of California history or prehistory.

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

Comment to Question XVIIIb: There are several reasonably foreseeable projects proposed in the City of Richmond (see Appendix B), located inside and outside the Refinery, that were evaluated, together with the potential construction and operational impacts from the new tanks, for potentially significant cumulative impacts (State CEQA Guidelines § 15064(h)). Three of these projects involve very small residential developments of four units or less. These projects would be expected to have no impacts and are not considered in this cumulative impacts analysis. The projects that are considered in the analysis are listed below:

Project Location Distance from Site area Description Status Tanks Point Molate Former Naval 1 mile 266 acres Environmental Remediation Fuel Depot; remediation of the Order No. R2- Richmond former Naval Fuel 2008-0095 of Depot. SFBRWQCB established Site Cleanup Requirements and Schedule for identifying remedy and land use controls. Land transferred from Navy under early transfer process on 4/12/2010, based on ROD of the FEIS for Disposal and Reuse. Point Molate Former Naval 1 mile 266 acres Resort and casino Resort and Fuel Depot; complex with SCH Casino Richmond recreational facilities #2005032073. Project (PLN Draft EIR/EIS 08-089) was issued 7/13/2009. Final EIR not yet issued. Other alternatives that fit within the DoD Base Reuse Plan under consideration. Miraflores Wall Ave & 4 miles 14 acres 336 units including both Senior South 45th St; market rate and SCH # Housing Richmond affordable senior 2007082154 Project housing NOD issued 12/15/2009

Meade From Regatta 4 miles 1.99 acres Temporary road to IS/MND issued Street Boulevard and reroute vehicular traffic 5/15/2009 Bypass Erlandson during construction of an Street to underpass at the Marina Meade Street; Bay Parkway railroad Richmond crossing

Project Location Distance from Site area Description Status Tanks

Marina Bay Marina Bay 4 miles 2 acres The parkway crossing SCH # Parkway Parkway would consist of a 2010108168 railroad 1,000-foot depressed crossing roadway along Marina NOE issued Bay Parkway beneath 10/20/10 the existing at-grade rail crossing. The rail traffic would cross over the depressed roadway via a 100-foot long by 20- foot wide single-span bridge structure.

Richmond Lakeside 5 miles ~2 acres Commercial center Proposed. Revival Drive, providing 42,000 square Project (PLN Richmond feet of neighborhood- Pre-application 09-084) serving businesses such review as markets, banks and occurred drugstores. 6/19/09.

Richmond I-80/ 6 miles ~ 5acres Improvements to SCH# Parkway Richmond existing Transit Center 2010102011 Transit Parkway to include 4 level parking Center, AC Interchange garage, expansion of MND on Transit bus transfer center to 10/12/10 and accommodate 12 buses, NOD on 12 bus shelters, security 12/23/10 facilities, restrooms, bicycle parking and service & maintenance areas

San Pablo San Pablo 3.5 miles Variable To enable Transit- SCH Avenue Ave within Oriented development #2010112062 Specific City limits (mixed use) Plan, City of NOP on San Pablo 11/23/10

Hercules City of 9 miles 7 acres Intermodal transit center SCH Intermodal Hercules to include a new station, #2009112087 Transit bus terminal and parking Center, City Joint EIR/EIS of Hercules released on 9/13/10

Project Location Distance from Site area Description Status Tanks

West County 13613 San 4 miles ~ 5 acres Replacement of the SCH # Health Pablo Avenue existing 32,000-sf 2010082059 Center Richmond Health Center City of San with a new 53,000sf, 2- MND 8/23/10 Pablo story, 34-foot tall medical facility. The project would also include a new 118,800sf, three-story parking structure with a height of 38 feet. Unlike a hospital, the project would also include a 24- hour emergency room would not include access by emergency vehicles with sirens

Chevron Within < 1 mile Variable Renewal Project Proposed Hydrogen Refinery elements that may Renewal proceed in the future Project pending Chevron Elements decision and CEQA clearances: • Hydrogen Plant replacement • Hydrogen Purity improvements

Chevron Within < 1 mile < 0.5 acre Electrical infrastructure Proposed Richmond Refinery upgrades: Critical Refinery Power, D&R Motor Maintenance Control Center, Cracking Operations Power Center, 17 Pump Station. Long Wharf Berth 4 Gangway Tower Project.

As depicted in the above table, there are several proposed maintenance operations projects for the Chevron Richmond Refinery. These projects are generally small scale and are typical of routine maintenance actions at the Refinery. The actions include the following long term electrical infrastructure upgrades and a project to add a gangway to the Long Wharf: • Critical power, 3 Sub High Voltage, 2/4 Sub High Voltage is expected to start after 2013 and to be completed by 2020. • Distillation and Reforming (D&R) Motor Control Center (MCC) upgrades are expected to start in 2012/2013 and to be completed by the end of 2016. • Cracking Power Center replaces or upgrades 50 year old substations and MCCs in the Fluid Cat Cracking process unit and is expected to start in 2011 and completed by the end of 2014.

• 17 Pump Station will upgrade aging substations and is expected to start in 2011 and completed by the end of 2013. • The Long Wharf Berth 4 Gangway Tower project features an aluminum gangway tower to be constructed on the deck of the existing wharf, and four pile supports and caps, to be integrated into the existing wharf pile system. The gangway tower structure will be fabricated off site and will not have any contact with San Francisco Bay. The four (4) piles will be 24” precast concrete and will be driven in place. Construction is scheduled to begin in June 2011 and be completed in December 2011.

In addition, assuming a decision is made by Chevron to reconsider some elements of the previously proposed Hydrogen and Energy Renewal Project (Renewal Project) at the Refinery, if any portion were to proceed in a time frame that includes any of the replacement or new storage tanks, it would not be expected that there would be any cumulative impact with the Tanks Replacement Project. This is in part due to the fact that the number of tanks originally identified by the Renewal Project has been reduced from twelve to the five petroleum tanks and one firewater tank considered in this study, and two of the four main components of the Renewal Project as originally proposed (CCR replacement, power plant replacement) have been deferred for a time period beyond the period of the Tank Replacements, leaving two main components that might proceed during or near the same time period as the Tank Replacements (i.e., Hydrogen Plant replacement, Hydrogen Purity improvements). These two components were included in the list of past, present and probable future projects, along with the potential projects outside the Refinery identified above, solely for purposes of this cumulative impacts assessment.

As shown in the preceding sections of this Initial Study, the construction and operation of the replacement petroleum tanks and new firewater tank will result in impacts that are less-than-significant, for any individual tank or for the six tanks taken together, with the implementation of all mitigation measures. In addition, for the reasons described below, the incremental effects from the construction and operation of the tanks will not result in a considerable contribution to any potentially significant cumulative impact.

The construction and operation of the tanks will not have an impact in the following areas and thus cannot have a cumulative impact in these areas:

• Agricultural and forest resources • Land use and planning • Mineral resources • Population and housing, and • Recreation.

Aesthetics. A few of the replacement tanks would be slightly taller and wider than the existing tank structures. However, the tanks will be constructed within the developed portion of the existing area of the Refinery, which has been an active industrial facility for more than 100 years. The tanks will be consistent with the existing industrial appearance of the overall complex and this area of the City of Richmond. The proposed Point Molate Resort and Casino is the closest project to the Chevron Tanks Replacement sites. It is separated from the Project by the nearly 500-feet-tall Potrero Ridge hills. Therefore, the cumulative aesthetics impacts of the two projects will be less-than-significant. As none of the non-Chevron projects are expected to create new viewpoints, or have overlapping aesthetics impacts, significant cumulative impacts on aesthetics will be less-than-significant.

Air Quality, Health Risk and Greenhouse Gases. The operation of the tanks has no effect on air pollutants other than ROG. As total ROG emissions from operation of the replacement tanks will result in no increase over baseline emissions and may provide an overall net reduction from current operations, there will be no cumulatively considerable effects of the tank replacements with other projects in the area. Additionally, the operation of the replacement tanks will not result in a measureable increase in Refinery

electrical load, and thus, operational impacts from greenhouse gases are negligible and would be cumulatively less than significant.

Construction of the tanks will result in slight but temporary increases in criteria air pollutants associated with operation of construction vehicles. Of these pollutants, only emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) will be at a level that is over 50% of the CEQA significance threshold. This is based on the planned 47-month construction schedule which assumes simultaneous construction of three tanks during four months, simultaneous construction of two tanks during 31 months and only one tank during 13 months. In addition, the other foreseeable projects listed above will likely be built out over different time periods, with peak construction activities occurring at different times. Finally, regional construction emission estimates are included in the District-wide emissions inventory used by the BAAQMD in regional air basin modeling as the basis for air quality plans designed to achieve attainment of air quality standards. The estimated construction emissions for the Tanks Replacement Project, when combined with potential simultaneous construction emissions from other foreseeable projects, would be consistent with the regional emission inventory estimates and would therefore not be expected to impede attainment and maintenance of air quality standards. This is consistent with BAAQMD-recommended guidance, as stated in Section 2.6.1 of the June 2010 BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, that if “…daily average emissions of construction-related criteria air pollutants or precursors would exceed any applicable Threshold of Significance…the project would result in a significant cumulative impact.” Since the project- level construction impacts are less than the adopted project-level CEQA significance levels, and these emissions are accounted for in regional air quality planning, it is reasonable to conclude that the cumulative impacts to air quality from the Tank Replacement Project and potential simultaneous foreseeable projects would be less-than-significant.

Therefore, the air quality and greenhouse gas effects of the project are not expected to be cumulatively considerable with other foreseeable projects in the area.

Biological Resources. As described in Section IV above, with the implementation of mitigation measures, the construction and operation of the five petroleum storage tanks and the Quarry Firewater tank are expected to have less-than-significant impacts on special status species, their habitats, and other sensitive natural communities. The Project will have no impact on jurisdictional or isolated wetlands, or any riparian area.

Cumulatively, potential impacts to special status fisheries could occur with additional discharges into receiving waters from the construction and operation of the other Refinery and non-Refinery industrial projects. Considering the negligible incremental contribution from the Tank Replacements, together with compliance with the discharge requirements that will be required of these cumulative projects, the cumulative impact to special status species would be less-than-significant. Since the Project will not affect special status species or their habitats, sensitive natural communities, or federal or state regulated wetlands or waters, the project will not contribute cumulatively to any biological impacts resulting from the other foreseeable projects in the Richmond area.

Cultural Resources. There are no known cultural resources that would be affected by the Project, and mitigation measures shall be implemented in the event that previously unknown cultural resources are discovered. The proposed Point Molate Remediation and Resort and Casino project is the closest foreseeable project to the Chevron Tank Replacement sites, and the Point Molate site is known to include archaeological and historic resources. However, the distance between the Tank Replacement project and the Point Molate project, and the physical barrier of a ridgeline separating the project sites, support the conclusion that neither project will affect cultural resources found on the other project site. In other words, the Tank Replacement project will have no impact cultural resources found on Point Molate and the Point Molate project will have no impact on cultural resources, if any, found at the Tank Replacement project sites. Therefore, cumulative impacts on cultural resources will be less-than-significant.

Geology and Soils. The potential for soil erosion is limited to the period of construction, and would be reduced once the tank structures are put in place. During construction, best management practices will be

implemented to minimize soil erosion and sedimentation. Since the existing tanks will be replaced with newer structures that meet current seismic standards, and any additional Chevron projects constructed would be built to current seismic standards, there would be an improvement in the Refinery’s ability to withstand seismic and other geologic hazards. Because the impacts from the Chevron Tank Replacements and other individual projects are local in nature, impacts from each project would be localized and there would be no cumulative impacts.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Construction of the Tank Replacements and other Chevron projects would not be expected to have any greater risk than routine construction projects, because acutely hazardous materials would not be used and proper hazardous materials handling and disposal would be employed if hazardous materials are discovered during construction. In the unlikely event of a construction safety accident with the Tank Replacements and other Chevron projects, the effects would be localized, and would not cumulate with the impacts of any of the other regional projects identified above. Similarly, none of the other regional projects, which generally involve constructing residential or commercial buildings and roadway infrastructure and are located in a different geographic area, would be expected to have construction-related hazards that could impact cumulatively with the Tank Replacements.

The Chevron Tank Replacements has a less-than-significant impact related to operation of the tanks, and these impacts are confined to the Refinery property. Because there would be no increase in the number of petroleum tanks, and the new tanks will be of modern design, there would be no cumulative operational risk expected with the other Chevron projects. Also, none of the regional projects considered handle significant hazardous or acutely hazardous materials. Therefore there would be no cumulative hazardous material impacts between the Tank Replacements and other regional projects.

Considering both construction and operational hazards as described above, the impacts from the Chevron Tank Replacements and other individual projects would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on hazards and hazardous materials.

Hydrology and Water Quality. The Tank Replacement project will have almost no impact on water quality. Runoff from tank roofs will be captured and treated in the Refinery’s wastewater treatment system. Treated wastewater will be stored in the Quarry Firewater Tank. Even in the event of a catastrophic release of the contents of the Firewater Tank, water would be contained in a catchment basin within the Refinery’s boundaries and would not impact water quality. Given the improbability of any adverse impact from the Tank Replacement project and the requirement that all of the foreseeable projects listed in the table above comply with policies and regulations for the preservation of water quality, cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality would be less-than-significant.

Noise. Demolition and construction of the tanks at the Refinery will generate construction noise, but these activities would not increase the perceived noise at the nearest residential receptors. Other proposed activities at the Refinery would not increase noise levels at the nearest residential receptors significantly. Because noise dissipates with distance, and the cumulative projects listed above are not within approximately one mile of the Refinery, there would be no cumulative noise impact due to the demolition, construction, and operation of the proposed tanks in combination with construction and operation of the cumulative projects. Groundborne vibration during construction of the Quarry Firewater Tank foundation will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. There are no foreseeable projects involving pile driving or other sources of groundborne vibration that are expected to coincide with construction of the Quarry Firewater Tank foundation. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impact related to groundborne vibration.

Public Services. During the construction phase, the Tank Replacement Project may result in a very slight increase in the number of calls to the Refinery Fire Department, and possibly more assistance calls for medical emergencies, which could cause a slight temporary increase in the demand for mutual aid from the Richmond Fire Department. The impact would be temporary and unlikely to coincide with

an increase in service calls caused by construction of any of the other foreseeable projects described above. Therefore the cumulative impact would be less-than-significant.

Transportation/Traffic. With the implementation of mitigation measures, impacts to transportation and traffic during construction of the Tank Replacements will be less than significant, as construction-related vehicle trips would not occur during the AM and PM peak periods and a Traffic Management Plan will be developed. These impacts will be temporary, and upon completion of construction, there will be no operational impact to traffic and transportation.

An earlier traffic impact analysis for the Chevron Richmond Refinery (see Appendix E) includes an analysis of Year 2008 conditions combined with a maximum of 1,767 daily construction-related vehicle- trips for the refinery. While the analysis indicated that the Castro Street / General Chemical Access and Richmond Parkway / Gertrude Avenue intersections would operate at unacceptable conditions for this scenario, the impacts could be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. In comparison, the Tank Replacements Project would contribute a maximum of 40 passenger car equivalent (PCE)4 trips per day during one month of the construction period (as described in Section 2.4.XVI above), or only about two percent of the maximum of 1,767 daily construction-related vehicle-trips predicted in the Year 2008 traffic impact analysis (Appendix E). Also as previously described, portions of the proposed Chevron Refinery projects described in Appendix E are on hold, so if these projects are not constructed in whole or in part, peak construction traffic levels would be significantly reduced by more than the 40 PCE construction- related trips per day that would result from the Tanks Replacement Project. In addition, construction- related traffic generated by either the Tank Replacements or other refinery construction would likely be finished well before the cumulative horizon year (Year 2025) of the Appendix E traffic study. Thus, impacts to traffic and transportation from the Tank Replacement and other Chevron projects would not be cumulatively considerable.

The Point Molate Remediation project will generate a small amount of construction-related traffic for the duration of the remediation process. Any construction impacts generated by the cleanup of the Point Molate site would be temporary in duration and unlikely to coincide the full 47-month schedule for the Tank Replacement project. In addition, construction-related traffic typically occurs during off-peak periods and does not coincide with the weekday AM and PM peak hours for general traffic. Although no specific timeline is available for the cleanup, once site remediation is complete, the site would remain empty for the foreseeable future, as the Point Molate Casino project is on indefinite hold.

With the exception of the proposed Point Molate Resort and Casino project, the other regional projects reviewed in this cumulative analysis individually have either less-than-significant traffic impacts, or are located sufficiently far enough away from the Refinery that combined traffic impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, since different local roadways would be used.

There is a strong potential that the proposed Point Molate Resort and Casino project will not commence construction within the projected 47-month construction schedule for the Tank Replacement project. (SFGate.com, 2010). It should also be noted that the traffic impact analysis completed by Wilbur Smith Associates (see Appendix E), which found no intersection LOS impacts under Year 2025 conditions, already assumes some active reuse of the Point Molate site in the future. Even if construction starts during the final 12 months of the Tank Replacements, PCE daily trips due to construction of the Tank Replacements would be between 10 and 24. This represents less than one percent of the 2,595 peak daily construction-related vehicle trips projected for the Point Molate Resort and Casino project, which would use different access roads than the construction vehicles for the Tank Replacements.

4 A passenger car equivalent (PCE) is a metric used to relate the effect of various modes of road-based transport (e.g., motorcycle, bicycle, truck, etc.) on traffic flow along roadways. A heavy vehicle such as a truck or bus, for example, has a high PCE value, because it has a more influential effect on the speed, density, and other characteristics of the roadway flow. A standard private automobile has a PCE of 1.0.

The potential traffic impacts of the Point Molate Resort and Casino during operation were also evaluated in the transportation analysis for that project’s draft EIR, and the analysis determined that the project would have a less-than-significant impact on the level of service (LOS) for roadway segments within the study area. All the freeway segments would operate at an acceptable LOS, with the exception of the US-101 and I-580 interchange in San Rafael, where there would be a small increase in traffic of less than two percent. The Point Molate Resort and Casino would have a three-year construction period according to the most recent documentation, but the environmental review process for that project has not yet been completed. Therefore, operation would not be expected before the completion of the 47-month Tank Replacements construction period. The peak construction traffic for the Tank Replacements, 40 PCEs, would occur in the sixteenth month of construction.

In summary, the Tank Replacements are not expected to impact any roadway and intersection facilities. Because overall peak construction traffic is only 40 PCEs and is expected to occur almost exclusively during off-peak periods, the Tank Replacements would not represent a considerable contribution to poor operations at the U.S. 101 / I-580 Interchange in San Rafael during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. With respect to the Chevron maintenance operations projects described above, these are small scale and typical of routine maintenance operations with a normal workforce. The portions of these maintenance projects that may overlap with the Tank Replacements would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact. If any portion of the previously proposed Chevron Renewal Project were to proceed in a timeframe overlapping construction of any of the replacement tanks, the above assessment with the Appendix E traffic report demonstrates that the impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Other regional projects evaluated either would have less-than-significant impacts, individually, or are far enough away that they would not be cumulatively considerable with the Tanks Replacement Project. Finally, construction of the Point Molate Resort and Casino project is not expected to commence before completion of the Tank Replacements, but even if it did, the combined impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Therefore, the Tanks Replacement Project’s traffic and transportation impacts are not expected to be cumulatively considerable with other known or foreseeable projects in the area.

Utilities and Service Systems. The Chevron Tank Replacements will have no impact on demand for electrical and water services and, therefore, would not have cumulative impacts on these resources. Because the number of petroleum tanks would remain the same, no change in the generation of solid hazardous or non-hazardous wastes related to operation is expected. However, demolition and construction of the tanks will generate hazardous and non-hazardous waste that may be sent to a landfill or other waste facility. This will include materials such as spent welding rods, construction trash, batteries from tools and communication devices, paint-related materials, construction material packing wastes (e.g., paint cans, wire spools, etc.), and construction vehicle waste oil and filters.

The incremental hazardous waste generation from construction and demolition of about seven tons per year is insignificant compared to the routine hazardous waste generation from the Chevron facilities in Richmond of 5,000 to 8,000 tons per year; the 27,000 tons of hazardous waste generated in 2009 by all City of Richmond businesses; and the 118,000 tons generated in 2009 by all Contra Costa County businesses (DTSC Hazardous Waste Tracking Report for 2009). Similarly, the amount of nonhazardous construction and demolition debris would be very small compared to that generated by all businesses and residents in Richmond and Contra Costa County. Along with other concurrent recycling and waste diversion identified in the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005 – 2010) and consistent with efforts of the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority, sufficient landfill capacity is expected to exist at nearby landfills such as Potrero Hills (Suisun City) or Redwood (Novato) for the limited non- hazardous construction debris from the Chevron projects along with other contemporaneous projects. Therefore there would be no cumulatively considerable impacts related to utility resources.

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Comment to Question XVIIIc: As shown in the preceding sections of this Initial Study, with implementation of the mitigation measures set forth above, the construction and operation of the tanks will not have significant environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

3.0 Reference

500 Nations website, 2010: http://500nations.com/news/California/20100121.asp Accessed December 14, 2010

ALOHA Model, 2007. Developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/cameo/aloha.htm Accessed September 2010.

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2009. Liquefaction Susceptibility Map. http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/liquefac/liquefac.html. Accessed August 2010.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010a. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. June. http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA- GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx. Accessed August 2010.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010b. Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction. Version 1.0. May. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/CEQA_Construction_Screen ing_Approach.ashx. Accessed August 2010.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).2010. Draft BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan. Accessed October 6, 2010: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Plans/2010%20Clean%20Air%20Pl an/Draft%202010%20CAP/Draft%202010%20CAP%20Volume%201.ashx

City of Richmond. 2008. Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project Environmental Impact Report. http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=832. Accessed August 2010.

California Department of Conservation. 2008. Contra Costa County Important Farmland in California., ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2008/con08.pdf. Accessed August 2010.

California Department of Fish and Game. Natural Diversity Database, version updated July 3, 2010. Data request for the San Quentin 7.5 minute quadrangle.

California Geological Survey. 2010a. Fault Activity Map of California. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/cgs_history/Pages/2010_faultmap.aspx. Accessed August 2010.

California Geological Survey. 2010b. Geologic Map of California. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/cgs_history/Pages/2010_geologicmap.aspx. Accessed August 2010.

California Native Plant Society. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, 2010. Data request for the San Quentin USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle.

Canadian Center for Occupational Health & Safety, http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/noise_basic.html, accessed November 2010

City of Richmond Fire Department. 2010. Department Facts. http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=1483. Accessed August 2010.

City of Richmond. 2010. Zoning Ordinance. http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=315

City of Richmond. 1994. Richmond General Plan. August.

SFGATE.com, November 10, 2010, “Planned Richmond casino at Point Molate in Danger” By Carolyn Jones, Chronicle Staff Writer, accessed from http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-11-10/bay-area/24824060_1_pomo-indians-casino-point-molate#loopbegin

United States Department of Agriculture. 2010. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm

United States Geologic Survey. 2008. 2008 Bay Area Earthquake Probabilities. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/ucerf/. Accessed August 2010.

Appendix A

Air Emissions Calculations

Appendix B

List of Projects Considered in Cumulative Impacts Analysis

Appendix C

Technical Memo on HRA for 12 Tanks

Appendix D

Biological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Firewater Tank

Appendix E

WSA Traffic Impact Analysis