CHEVRON ENERGY and HYDROGEN RENEWAL PROJECT Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

Home , Catalytic reforming, Phyllis Fox

CHEVRON ENERGY AND HYDROGEN RENEWAL PROJECT Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

Prepared for March 2008 City of Richmond

CHEVRON ENERGY AND HYDROGEN RENEWAL PROJECT Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

Prepared for March 2008 City of Richmond

225 Bush Street Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94104 415.896.5900 www.esassoc.com

Los Angeles

Oakland

Olympia

Petaluma

Portland

Sacramento

San Diego

Seattle

Tampa

Woodland Hills

205166

TABLE OF CONTENTS Responses to Late Received Comments Letters on the Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project

5.00 Introduction

5.01 Department of Justice (DOJ#2), Rose Fua, November 28, 2007

5.02 Department of Justice (DOJ#3), Rose Fua, December 13, 2007

5.03 Contra Costa Health Services (CCH), Wendel Brunner, December 4, 2007

5.04 Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program (CCHM), Randall Sawyer, November 15, 2007

5.05 Adams, Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo (ABJC#2), Suma Peesapati, October 19, 2007

5.06 Adams, Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo (ABJC#2A), Phyllis Fox, October 19, 2007

5.07 Adams, Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo (ABJC#3), Suma Peesapati, November 20, 2007

5.08 Atchison Village Mutual Homes Association (AVMHA#2), Nick Jones & Ruth Gilmore, October 3, 2007

5.09 Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE#2), Greg Karras, November 15, 2007

5.10 Contra Costa Council (CCC), Linda Best, October 12, 2007

5.11 Scott Curtner, December 7, 2007

5.12 Jeff Shea, December 13, 2007

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project i ESA / 205166 Responses to Late Received Comment Letters March2008

5. Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

5.00 Introduction

Responses to all comments on the Draft EIR that were received prior to the close of the formal comment period (July 9, 2007) were published, with supporting information, in the Final EIR, Volumes 3 through 5 (January 2008).

This document includes comments on the Draft EIR that were received after the close of the public comment period. Although this document is not bound into the Final EIR volumes, to avoid confusion with other Response to Comments, the late-received letters are numbered 5.01 through 5.12, so that these response numbers are unique in context of the Final EIR.

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.00-1 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late Received Comment Letters March 2008

Comment Letter 5.01 Comment Letter 5.01 Comment Letter 5.01

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.01

5. Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

5.01 California Department of Justice, Deputy Attorney General, Rosa B. Fua, November 28, 2007 Responses to Comments DOJ#2-1 Many projects, such as the Proposed Project, require approvals from “responsible agencies” as well as from the lead agency (in this case, the City). A responsible agency must consider the lead agency’s certified EIR when deciding whether to approve the project (or a component of the project). See CEQA Guidelines § 15096. Here, the California Energy Commission (“CEC”) is a responsible agency, with authority to approve, deny, or exempt the Power Plant Replacement component of the Proposed Project. CEQA does not require the lead agency to suspend its review and approval process until after the CEC has permitted the Power Plant, as the commenter has suggested. On the contrary, the approach called for in the CEQA Guidelines would be for the CEC to rely on the City’s EIR. See CEQA Guidelines § 15096. More importantly, after submitting its own information requests to Chevron throughout the preparation of the EIR, some of which were based on inquiries made by the public through the CEC process, the City has obtained sufficient information to complete a Final EIR that identifies the environmental effects of the Proposed Project, identifies alternatives, and identifies feasible mitigation measures. If the Power Plant changes substantially during the future CEC permitting process, CEQA would require subsequent or supplemental environmental review. See CEQA Guidelines §§ 15096(f), 1562, 1563.

DOJ#2-2 Chevron has informed the City that it intends to build the Proposed Project’s single CoGen unit, as described and analyzed in the Draft EIR (and as considered in the Final EIR) for the Proposed Project. Chevron’s recent reply letter to the City (Chevron, 2008a) indicates that the Proposed Project considered in the Draft EIR, and described with minor text revisions in the Final EIR, is consistent with the description of the cogeneration plant that was submitted to the CEC.

The Draft EIR described a cooling tower related to the LM6000 gas turbine, which was the originally proposed turbine equipment. After publication of the Draft EIR, Chevron revised the project design to replace the LM6000 gas turbine with a General Electric, Frame 6B gas turbine. This change rendered the cooling tower unnecessary and it was eliminated from the Proposed Project. See also Response to Comment DOJ#3-1.

DOJ#2-3 While it is true that Chevron’s initial application to the City (and to BAAQMD) requested up to four CoGen units, as the CEQA review process moved forward, Chevron determined the Proposed Project would require only a single unit (Chevron, 2008a). The application to the CEC reflects this change. Similarly, the

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.01-1 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late Received Comment Letters March 2008 5. Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

Draft EIR considered only one CoGen unit. The Draft EIR describes the Power Plant Replacement component on pages 3-5 and 3-31 to 3-32. This description remains accurate, except that the cooling tower associated with the gas turbine unit has been eliminated. This change is included in the text edits to the Final EIR (Vol. 3, Table 3-2, p. 4-40) and is expected to reduce environmental impacts.

DOJ#2-4 The City is using revised air emission estimates reviewed by the BAAQMD for the Proposed Project’s air emission sources. BAAQMD provided these revised estimates of these data to the City in September 2007. The changes resulting from these revised data are discussed in the Final EIR, Vol. 3, Master Response 2.5.

DOJ#2-5 Again, as discussed in Response to Comment DOJ#2-4, the City is using the most recently available air emission data from the BAAQMD for its analysis. Because important factors such as fuel types affect emissions, they are considered by the BAAQMD in evaluating the Chevron applications and in defining the air permit conditions. As discussed in response to BAAQMD’s comments on the Draft EIR (see Final EIR, Vol. 3, Section 3.4) and Master Response 2.5, the Final EIR presents the changes to the air emission estimates since publication of the Draft EIR.

DOJ#2-6 See Response to Comment DOJ#2-1. The City is required by CEQA to continue the process of preparing the Final EIR. The City’s CEQA process is separate and distinct from the CEC Small Power Plant Exemption process.

DOJ#2-7 See Final EIR, Vol. 3, Master Response 2.1 and Responses to Comments DOJ#2-1, 2, and 3 in this document.

References Chevron 2008a, Letter from Tery Lizarraga of Chevron to Lamont Thompson of the City of Richmond (January 10, 2008).

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.01-2 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late Received Comment Letters March 2008 Comment Letter 5.02 Comment Letter 5.02 Comment Letter 5.02 Comment Letter 5.02 Comment Letter 5.02 Comment Letter 5.02 Comment Letter 5.02

Comment Letter 5.02

Comment Letter 5.02 Comment Letter 5.02 Comment Letter 5.02 Comment Letter 5.02 Comment Letter 5.02

Comment Letter 5.02 Comment Letter 5.02 Comment Letter 5.02 Comment Letter 5.02 5. Responses to Late-Received Comments

5.02 California Department of Justice, Deputy Attorney General, Rose B. Fua, December 13, 2007 Responses to Comments Many of the Deputy Attorney General’s comments on the adequacy and accuracy of the information relied upon in preparing the Draft EIR and on the City’s CEQA process were also made by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ABJC) and Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) in their timely comments on the Draft EIR. Responses to those previously submitted comments by ABJC and CBE are provided in Volume 3 of the Final EIR, which was published in January 2008. In particular, see the Responses to comment letters ABJC, ABJC-A, CBE, and CBE-A. See also Responses to late comment letters ABJC#3 and DOJ#2 in this document.

DOJ#3-1 The Draft EIR relied on the permit information that was current at the time the document was published (May 2007) to assess the potential impacts of the Proposed Project. Changes in the Proposed Project or in the air permit applications prior to that time were not relevant to the analyses in the Draft EIR. After publication of the Draft EIR, Chevron and BAAQMD continued to discuss the air permit applications, and Chevron revised its Project and amended its air permit applications as part of the standard BAAQMD permitting process. Revised air quality information was provided to the City in September 2007. The preparation and publication of the Final EIR for the Proposed Project was delayed to assure that all of the information forming the basis of the analysis was current and sufficient. In Chevron’s June 2005 BAAQMD application, and in all subsequent revised submittals to the BAAQMD, estimated emissions of criteria air pollutants (except for VOCs) were below the CEQA thresholds of significance for air quality impacts that have been adopted by the BAAQMD and were used by the City in the EIR. The trend of the changes in Chevron’s BAAQMD application has been to reduce the magnitude of the Project’s impacts. With respect to VOC emissions, which were determined to be significant and unavoidable in the Draft EIR, Chevron revised its analysis and agreed to implement a mitigation measure that will ensure that emissions are below the significance threshold. This information is provided in Volume 3 the Final EIR, pages 2-31 to 2-34.

Elimination of the cooling tower is not a material change to the Proposed Project,

and its elimination reduces PM10 emissions by approximately 0.7 tons per year and also reduces water use. Elimination of the cooling tower also results in a small reduction in toxics emissions (bromine and compounds, chlorine, and chloroform), which results in a small reduction in chronic health risk. When the cooling tower was eliminated, updated criteria and toxic emissions estimates were provided to the BAAQMD for its evaluation. These emissions estimates are

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.02-1 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late Received Comment Letters March 2008 5. Responses to Late-Received Comments

included in the Final EIR (Volume 4, Appendix 1). The effects of eliminating the cooling tower from the Proposed Project were considered in the preparation of the Response to Comments document (Final EIR, Volume 3, page 4-40). See also Responses DOJ#2-2 and DOJ#2-3 in this document. This change does not require revision and recirculation of the Draft EIR because it reduces impacts of the Proposed Project.

The CEC application does not include a cooling tower for the new CoGen unit. The cooling tower described in the CEC application (as well as the BAAQMD application process and the Draft EIR) is part of an energy recovery system in the Hydrogen Plant Replacement. (See Chevron 2007)

Chevron has provided the City with the information on Project revisions and emissions calculations given to BAAQMD. The City has determined that changes in the Proposed Project during the BAAQMD permitting process do not constitute “significant new information” as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, and that recirculation of the EIR is not required. The description of the Proposed Project and its environmental characteristics in the Final EIR is an accurate picture of the Proposed Project and its impacts. If the scope of the Project changes significantly in the future, further CEQA review may be required as provided in CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163. See also Response DOJ#3-1 above.

The questions from BAAQMD staff to Chevron listed by the commenters are follow-up questions, requests for clarification, and requests for the information used by BAAQMD to develop its conditions of approval. BAAQMD has informed the City that it does not expect that further minor revisions to the air permit or emissions estimates will result in air emissions exceeding CEQA significance levels (see Final EIR, Vol. 3, Response BAAQMD-7). With respect to the comment on the “offset factor” for VOC emissions, Chevron (2008a) has provided the following explanation, which the City has reviewed and found reasonable:

“At the time that the existing Permit Condition No. 469 (RLOP Cap) VOC emission limit was established, the applicable EPA AP-42 VOC emission factor was 0.003 lb/MMBtu of fuel combusted. Since that time, the EPA has revised the AP-42 VOC emission factor to 0.0054 lb/MMBtu of fuel combusted. The Project’s emissions estimates and the generation of emission reduction credits (ERC’s) from existing equipment are based on the current EPA emission factor. Since Condition 459 requires the RLOP Cap Limit to be adjusted downward when ERC’s are generated from equipment subject to the limit, the BAAQMD asked Chevron to surrender Existing ERC’s to account for the difference in the two emission factors. As set forth in the table below, Chevron therefore intends to provide 24.63 tons/year of VOC emissions credits to the BAAQMD.

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.02-2 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late Received Comment Letters March 2008 5. Responses to Late Received Comments

Contrary to the Attorney General’s assertion, Chevron is not ‘seeking to use an “offset factor” that is almost twice as much as allowable by its current permit condition.’ Chevron is being required to apply the EPA AP-42 emission factor when calculating VOC emission increases and decreases occurring as a result of Renewal Project implementation. The EPA’s update of the VOC emission factor was an administrative change in the way emissions are estimated. There was no change in actual emissions and the Project’s VOC emissions will remain below CEQA significance levels.”

DOJ#3-2 The issue of VOC emissions from storage tanks was also raised in the November 28, 2007 letter from the Attorney General’s office (DOJ#2 in this document). Under BAAQMD permitting Regulation 2 Rule 1, it is too early for Chevron to file the air permit applications for many of the storage tanks. The time frame covered by the analysis of the Master EIR is much longer than the time frame over which Authority to Construct permits, if filed and approved now, would expire. The BAAQMD, as a responsible agency, has received and reviewed the EIR, which contains emissions estimates for the future, proposed storage tanks (See Responses to BAAQMD Comments in Volume 3 of the Final EIR. See also Response DOJ#2-4 in this document).

The issue of the type of fuel to be used in the power plant was also raised in the November 28, 2007 letter. See Responses to Comments DOJ#2-5 in this document and ABJC-A-11 in the Final EIR, Volume 3. The gas turbine will burn natural gas, medium BTU natural gas and LPG (propane, butanes and pentanes). The duct burner will burn refinery fuel gas. Thus, the description in the Draft EIR is correct. BAAQMD Draft Permit Condition 43 has been revised to conform to this description. The addition of natural gas to the list of fuels burned in the duct burner has no effect on emissions, because refinery fuel gas contains natural gas and the AP-42 emissions factors for natural gas are commonly used for refinery fuel gas as well.

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.02-3 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late Received Comment Letters March 2008 5. Responses to Late-Received Comments

The calculation of SO2 emissions from the gas turbine/duct burner complex takes into account the potentially higher sulfur content of the LPG burned in the turbine relative to the other fuels. There is an additional allowance of 1.67 tons per year of SO2 emissions built into the emissions estimate to account for LPG burned in the gas turbine. This allowance is based on assumptions of 400 million BTU of the total 840 million BTU/hr maximum annual heat duty for both turbine and the duct burner coming from normal butane.

The question of inaccurate representations in the Draft EIR was raised in the November 28, 2007 letter. As discussed in Response to Comment DOJ#2-4, the City used the September 2007 revisions of air emission data from the BAAQMD for its analysis. As discussed in the Response DOJ#3-1, above, and in Responses to comment letter BAAQMD and Master Response 2.5 in the Final EIR, the Draft EIR presented and analyzed the air emission estimates that were current at the time of publication. After publication of the Draft EIR, revisions were made to the project and its emission estimates. On September 11, 2007, Barry Young, Manager of Permit Evaluation for the BAAQMD, sent a copy of the criteria pollutant emissions estimates to the City in an e-mail (Young, 2007), which stated:

“Based on review of the attached criteria pollutant emissions estimate spreadsheets for the Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project, the District endorses these emissions estimates for CEQA purposes.”

All of the District-approved emissions estimates continue to show that the emissions from the Proposed Project would be less-than-significant based on CEQA thresholds. For example, the District-approved estimates show a reduction

in PM10 emissions, whereas the Draft EIR showed an increase in PM10 emissions. The District-approved emissions also show a smaller increase in CO emissions resulting from the Project than the increase described in the Draft EIR.

DOJ#3-3 The commenter describes at length the matter of new and net air emissions and the differences among the CEC application, the various stages of the air permit application submittals to BAAQMD, and the Draft EIR analysis. Because the CEC application for an exemption does not affect the City of Richmond environmental review and permitting process, the EIR analysis did not rely on the air quality information contained in that application. The Draft EIR and the Final EIR are based on information provided to the City by the BAAQMD. As intended by CEQA, the Draft EIR and the Final EIR consider the changes in air emissions and other effects – the environmental consequences - that would occur if the Proposed Project were constructed and operated. See Response to Comment DOJ#3-1, above. With respect to inconsistencies, the noted variations are typical of the evolution of a project in response to air permit application review by the BAAQMD. For example, differences between the CoGen applications to the BAAQMD and CEC are discussed in Response DOJ#2-3,

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.02-4 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late Received Comment Letters March 2008 5. Responses to Late Received Comments

while the hydrogen plant cooling tower PM10 emissions are discussed in Response to Comment ABJC-A-14 in the Final EIR Volume 3.

As explained by Chevron in its January 10, 2008 letter to the City, when Chevron initially submitted its air permit application to the BAAQMD in 2005, Chevron planned to replace its two existing cogeneration units and to construct two

additional units. The 100.24 tons/year NOx emissions estimate reflects the total firing for all four plants (3105 million BTU/hr (HHV)). Prior to publication of the Draft EIR, Chevron reduced the scope of the Project. As stated in the Draft EIR, Chevron plans to retain the two existing units and to construct only one new Cogen unit. Thus, the two planned replacement units are no longer part of the

Proposed Project and their emissions are not included. Estimated NOx emissions

for the one new cogeneration unit are 33.91 tons/year. Estimated NOx emissions for the existing No. 1 Power Plant (to be replaced) are 47.43 tons/year; therefore, the power plant replacement would create a net emissions reduction of 13.52

tons/year of NOx. (See Chevron 2008a.)

Other responses regarding emissions for individual components of the Proposed Project are contained in Master Response 2.5 in the Final EIR Volume 3. In sum, because the changes generally result in reductions of emissions, and BAAQMD has indicated that none of the changes to the air emissions estimates will cause the Proposed Project to exceed significance levels (Young 2008), there are no inconsistencies in the emissions data provided to the City, BAAQMD, and CEC that would lead to any unidentified or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than those discussed in the EIR.

References Chevron 2008a, Letter from Tery Lizarraga of Chevron to Lamont Thompson of the City of Richmond (January 10, 2008).

Chevron 2007, Letter from Tery Lizarraga of Chevron to William Lindsay of the City of Richmond (December 24, 2007).

Young 2008, Electronic communication from Barry G. Young of the BAAQMD to the City of Richmond (January 7, 2008).

Young 2007, Electronic communication from Barry G. Young of the BAAQMD to the City of Richmond (September 11, 2007).

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.02-5 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late Received Comment Letters March 2008

Comment Letter 5.03 Comment Letter 5.03 5. Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

5.03 Contra Costa Health Services, Wendel Brunner, December 4, 2007 Responses to Comments CCH-1 Please see Master Response 2.8, Public Health, in Volume 3 of the Final EIR, pages 2-53 to 2-60. Section 2.8.1, Background and Structure of Responses, identifies the specific responses to comments that address the various public health issues, including asthma. Section 2.8.1 also summarizes the report: Issues and Opportunities Paper #8: Community Health and Wellness (City of Richmond, June 2007 draft), prepared for the City’s General Plan update, in which the potential causes of elevated asthma levels are discussed. In addition, Section 2.8.1 identifies reports that state it is very difficult to quantitatively relate air pollution directly to asthma, and concludes:

“Although many studies related to the incidences of health effects have been performed, it is very difficult to relate causes and effects when determining respiratory health problems such as asthma.”

Master Response 2.8 then discusses the health effects of VOC emissions. As explained in Section 2.8.2, the final EIR identifies mitigation measures that would reduce VOC emissions from the Proposed Project to a less-than- significant level. Thus, VOC emissions from the Proposed Project would not contribute to increased asthma levels.

Master Response Section 2.8.3, Diesel Particulate Emissions and Health Effects, addresses respiratory effects in the Richmond area and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions in particular. As explained in Response 2.8.3, the increased risk resulting from DPM emissions from the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

CCH-2 Anhydrous ammonia is already produced on site as a by-product of the refining process and would be beneficially recycled through use in the Refinery. Any alternative processes to generate aqueous ammonia or ammonia pellets on-site would be new processes that are not proposed at this time, which would add to the risk of release rather than reduce it, consume energy and generate additional waste products. Conversely, transporting aqueous ammonia or ammonia pellets from off-site would add to the risk of accidental releases of these hazardous materials during transport. As such, Chevron believes that it would be environmentally detrimental to replace Refinery use of anhydrous ammonia with aqueous ammonia or ammonia pellets and has not prepared an engineering evaluation of such options. Chevron does plan to perform an Inherently Safer Study (ISS) of the potential to use aqueous ammonia instead of anhydrous ammonia, for purposes of compliance with the local industrial safety ordinance, even though the Proposed Project will not use aqueous ammonia. In doing so,

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.03-1 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late Received Comment Letters March 2008 5. Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

Chevron will follow its established process for conducting and documenting an ISS on ammonia. Nevertheless, given that page 4.13-20 of the Draft EIR concluded that the use of anhydrous ammonia would not result in a significant public safety risk, the more detailed analysis conducted for purposes of the local industrial safety ordinance is not necessary for purposes of compliance with CEQA.

See also Response ABJC-51 in the Final EIR Volume 3.

CCH-3 See Master Response 2.7 in the Final EIR Volume 3.

CCH-4 Subsequent to the publication of the Draft EIR, Chevron agreed to the installation of dome enclosures over floating-roof Tanks T-954 and T-3228. Installation of domes over floating-roof tanks would result in emission reductions by blocking air currents that would otherwise directly contact the edge seals of the tanks’ floating roofs and increase leakage of VOC through the seals. The VOC emissions reduction from installing domes over these two tanks is estimated to be 4.9 tons/year for T-954 (resulting in net new emissions of 1.1 tons/year), and 6.8 tons/year for T-3228 (resulting in net new emissions of 1.2 tons/year). This represents a combined 11.7 tons/year (64 pounds/day) VOC emissions reduction and would reduce the 23.9 tons/year (per the Draft EIR) to 12.2 tons/year, which would mitigate this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level. For more detailed discussion of VOC emissions, please see Master Response 2.5, and especially Subsection 2.5.2 (Tank VOC Emissions) in the Final EIR Volume 3.

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.03-2 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late Received Comment Letters March 2008 Comment Letter 5.04

From: Parin Shah [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:59 PM To: Lamont Thompson; Ellen J. Garber Cc: Gayle McLaughlin Subject: FW: FW: Chevron

Hi-

This is from the County Health Dept folks. They handle the Richmond ISO.

Parin

Parin Shah Mayor's Office 1401 Marina Way South Richmond, CA 94804 510-620-6527

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 5:18 PM To: Parin Shah Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: FW: Chevron

Hi Parin,

Chevron's DEIR does have more information on Public Safety then I first understood. The big difference between Chevron's and ConocoPhillips' DEIRs is how ConocoPhillips looked at many different accident scenarios because of the new equipment. They discussed the likelihood of an incident and did modeling to look at the consequence of the incident. By doing this it gave a broader information of what could happen. Chevron's DEIR mostly stated that the amount of chemicals that they are increasing is well below the existing amounts being handled and because the existing scenarios did not impact the community this would not either. The exception to this is the use of anhydrous ammonia. This could have a potential offsite impact but Chevron's DEIR did not look at the likelihood or the consequence of the handling of anhydrous ammonia. Note: ConocoPhillips uses aqueous ammonia instead of anhydrous ammonia. Aqueous ammonia is considered to be inherently safer then using anhydrous ammonia. Chevron should use aqueous ammonia if it is feasible as required by the Industrial Safety Ordinance. ConocoPhillips DEIR goes into a lot more depth at looking at potential accidents because of additional equipment and transportation.

Chevron DEIR does look at the hazardous materials that are being handled and if this may impact the community. The Public Safety section of the DEIR does not consider that the additional equipment could increase the likelihood of such an incident occurring or that modifying existing units reduce or increase the likelihood.

Chevron's DEIR does give more information then I first was aware. So I apologize in leading you down a path that was not completely correct. Comment Letter 5.04

But I believe that Chevron EIR could expand on the different potential accidents, the likelihood, and the potential results of these accidents. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Randall L. Sawyer Hazardous Materials Programs Director 4333 Pacheco Blvd. Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: (925) 646-2286 Fax. (925) 646-2073

5. Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

5.04 Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Program, Randall L. Sawyer, November 15, 2007 Responses to Comments CCHM-1 For a discussion of the potential offsite impact from the use of anhydrous ammonia, see Response CCH-2 in this document and Response ABJC-51 in the Final EIR, Volume 3.

CCHM-2 See Response CCH-2 in this document and Response ABJC-51 in the Final EIR, Volume 3.

CCHM-3 Please see Response ABJC-51 in the Final EIR, Volume 3.

CCHM-4 Please see Response ABJC-51 in the Final EIR, Volume 3.

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.04-1 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late Received Comment Letters March 2008

Comment Letter 5.05

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DANIEL L. CARDOZO SACRAMENTO OFFICE RICHA RD T. DRURY ATTORNEYS AT LAW THOMAS A. ENSLOW 520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350 TANYA A. GULESSERIAN 601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4715 MARC D. JOSEPH SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080-7037 TEL: (916) 444-6201 OSHA R. MESERVE ______FAX: (916) 444-6209 SUMA P EESAPATI GLORIA D. SMITH TEL: (650) 589-1 660 FAX: (650) 589-5 062 FELLOW speesapati@adamsb roadwell.com STEPHEN R. MILLER

OF COUNSEL THOMAS R. ADAMS October 19, 2007 ANN BROADWELL

VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL

Lamont Thompson, Senior Planner City of Richmond Planning and Building Regulations Department 1401 Marina Way South Richmond, CA 94804 Email: [email protected]

Re: Supplemental Comments on Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project, Project Number: EID 1101974

Dear Mr. Thompson:

I. INTRODUCTION

On behalf of Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 342, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 302, Boilermakers Local 549, Heat and Frost Insulators/Asbestos Workers Local 16, Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council, Dennis Ervin Roos, Sr., Ernest Washington, John Paysinger and Stanley Fletcher (“Unions”), we submit the following supplemental comments on the City of Richmond’s (“City”) Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project, Project Number: EID 1101974 (“Project”). As explained more fully below, the City’s DEIR does not comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The City may not approve the Project nor grant any permits for the Project until an adequate Environmental Impact Report is prepared and circulated for public review and comment.

We have prepared these comments with the assistance of a technical expert named Dr. Phyllis Fox. The comments of Dr. Fox along with her curriculum vitae is appended hereto. Please note that Dr. Fox’s comments supplement the issues addressed below and should be addressed and responded to separately.

1728-129a

printed on recycled paper Comment Letter 5.05

October 19, 2007 Page 2

II. THE DEIR VIOLATES CEQA

A. The DEIR Fails to Disclose the Specific Changes to Chevron’s Crude Slate

An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally adequate EIR. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192 [139 Cal.Rptr. 396, 401].) Without it, CEQA’s objective of fostering public disclosure and informed environmental decision-making is stymied.

As explained by Dr. Fox, the quality of the average crude refined in the United States has progressively become heavier and the sulfur content has progressively increased.1 The world supply of conventional light, sweet crudes is rapidly declining. Refiners around the world are upgrading their facilities to allow them to refine high-sulfur, heavy crudes that remain in abundance.2 This trend will only continue as light, sweet crudes become more scarce.

The no project alternative in the DEIR explains that “continued importation of sweet crude may not be feasible because future availability of sweet crude is in question. Approximately 75% of the world’s oil reserves are sour crude, and only 25% are sweet crude, while most of the current oil production (40%) and most of the world’s refineries are geared toward processing sweet crude.” DEIR, p. 11. Crude oil is defined as “sweet” if the sulfur content is 0.5% or less by weight and “sour” if the sulfur content is greater than 1.0%.

Dr. Fox’s analysis shows that the Refinery currently can process crude oil with about 2% sulfur and the current crude mix has about 1.7% sulfur. The DEIR

1 Robert E. Maples, Petroleum Refinery Process Economics, PennWell Books,1993, pp. 12-13; James G. Speight and Baki Ozum, Petroleum Refining Processes, 2002, pp, 27-28 and Fig. 2-1 & 2.2 (“In a more general sense the average quality of crude oil has become worse in recent years. This is reflected in a progressive decrease in API gravity (Fig. 2.2) (i.e., increase in density) and a rise in sulfur content (Fig. 2.3).”) 2 Gary R. Brierley, Visnja A. Gembicki, and Tim M. Cowan, Changing Refinery Configuration for Heavy and Synthetic Crude Processing at: http://www.uop.com/objects/ChangingRefineryConfiguration.pdf; California Energy Commission, Transportation Fuels, Technologies, and Infrastructure Assessment Report, December 2003, at www.energy.ca.gov/reports/100-03-013F.PDF; Oklahoma Secretary of Energy, The 2005 Oklahoma Refinery Report: Volume 1, Challenges & Opportunities. A Study of the Oklahoma Refining Industry, 2005 at http://www.ok.gov/marginalwells/documents/2005_Refinery_Rpt_Vol_1.pdf. 1728-129a Comment Letter 5.05

October 19, 2007 Page 3

admits that the Project “would enable the Refinery to process crude mixes with a typical sulfur content of up to 3 percent.” DEIR, p. 3-26. In other words one of the purposes of the Project is to expand the Refinery’s options for using a “wider range of crude oils, including the ability to process crude oils with higher sulfur contents” (Id. at p. 4.3-38) and to “process reliable supplies of globally available crude oils . . . including those with higher sulfur content.” Id. at p. 3-26.

According to Dr. Fox’s expert opinion, these higher sulfur crudes typically weigh more per unit volume (i.e., have a higher density and thus are “heavier”) than lower sulfur crudes, especially 3% sulfur crudes, which rank among some of the heaviest.3 Even higher sulfur crudes than 3% could be included in a 3% “mix,” which might include, for example, Canadian tar sands or heavy Venezuelan crudes, which are closer and more secure than oils from Russia or the Middle East.

The DEIR fails to disclose whether the future crude slate will be heavier or lighter than the current slate. However, Dr. Fox opines that as sulfur content goes up, the heaviness of the crude goes up (see cites in footnote 3), so it is inevitable that the Renewal Project will result in importing and processing heavier crudes. The DEIR ultimately discloses a new “Swing Tank for Heavy Crude Oil” to provide backup storage for heavy crudes, so clearly, some increase in heavy crudes is anticipated. DEIR, pp. 1-3, 3-6, 3-44. Further, the proposed upgrades are consistent with processing heavier crudes, e.g., increased hydrogen production

3 James G. Speight and Baki Özüm, Petroleum Refining Processes, 2002, Fig. 4.2 (“correlations exist between the density (API gravity) and sulfur content (Fig. 4.2).”); James G. Spreight, The Chemistry and Technology of Petroleum, 3rd Ed., Marcel Dekker, 1999, pp. 91-94. The cited material from these two Speight books can be viewed online through Google.Books at http//books.google.com; Paul G. Lillis, Representative Bulk Composition of Oil Types for the 2002 U.S. Geological Survey Resource Assessment of National Petroleum Reserves in Alaska, USGS Open-File Report 03-407, 2004, Tables 1,2 at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-407/of03-407.pdf; Marilyn E. Tennyson and Caroline M. Isaacs, Geologic Setting and Petroleum Geology of Santa Maria and Santa Barbara Basins, Coastal California, In: Caroline M. Isaacs and Jurgen Rullkotter (Eds.), The Monterey Formation: From Rocks to Molecules, Columbia University, p. 358, Figures 19.6 & 19.7, 2001; Paul Lillis and Les Mogoon, Oil-Oil Correlations to Establish a Basis for Mapping Petroleum Systems – San Joaquin Basin, California, Compiled PowerPoint Slides, USGS Open File Report 2004-1037, 2004, pp. 10-11; Enbridge Pipelines, Inc., 2006 Crude Characteristics at http://www.enbridge.com/pipelines/about/pdf/crudecharacteristics2006.pdf; Crude Oil Specifications at http://www.genesisny.net/Commodity/Oil/OSpecs.html; The American Petroleum Institute, High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical Challenge Program, Test Plan, Crude Oil Category, Submitted to U.S. EPA, November 21, 2003, pp. 7-8; 1728-129a Comment Letter 5.05

October 19, 2007 Page 4

capacity.4 Especially because the import of heavier, higher sulfur crudes may result in more serious biological and water quality impacts in the event of a spill, the DEIR’s Project description must be revised to disclose whether the Project will allow Chevron to process heavier crudes. And, if so, the DEIR must be further revised to describe the composition of these heavier crudes with specificity.

B. The DEIR Fails to Analyze or Mitigate the Significant Impacts Associated with A Heavy Crude Spill

An EIR must disclose all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of a project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(1).) As explained by an appellate court CEQA decision:

The EIR must demonstrate that the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project were adequately investigated and discussed and it must permit the significant effects of the project to be considered in the full environmental context. (Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (c).) We interpret this Guideline broadly in order to “afford the fullest possible protection to the environment.” (Kings County Farm Bureau, supra, 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 720.) In so doing, we ensure that the EIR’s analysis of significant effects, which is generated from this description of the environmental context, is as accurate as possible. (See also Remy et al., Guide to the Cal. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (10th ed. 1999), pp. 374-376.)

Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency, (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 874. The DEIR fails to disclose the potentially significant and significant impacts associated with a heavy crude oil spill in San Francisco Bay.

Dr. Fox explains that crude oil is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons consisting predominately of aliphatic, alicyclic and aromatic hydrocarbons (mostly paraffins, naphthenes, and aromatics) covering the carbon range from C1 to C60+. The relative amounts of these materials vary depending upon the source of the crude. The relative amounts also determine the environmental impacts of a crude spill. The DEIR does not disclose the composition of either the current slate of crudes or the proposed future slate that will be imported as a result of the Project.

4 See, for example, W.V. Steele, Fundamental Chemistry of Heavy Oil, at: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/fossil/Publications/ANNUAL-2003/feac327.pdf. 1728-129a Comment Letter 5.05

October 19, 2007 Page 5

The lower molecular weight components of crude may dissolve, resulting in toxicity to aquatic biota. The intermediate fractions of crude may float and spread out on the water surface, forming emulsions that would foul marine birds, and/or adsorb to soil and sediment, impacting benthic organisms. The viscous, heavier components may agglomerate and sink to the bottom or remain suspended in the water column, posing risks to biological resources not normally impacted by spills. The proposed changes to the Refinery will accommodate much larger amounts of heavy crudes or crudes with higher heavy fractions than those currently processed.

It can be reasonably expected that large oil spills will occur in San Francisco Bay as a result of continuing to operate the Refinery. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Chevron U.S.A Long Wharf Marine Oil Terminal Lease Renewal (“Long Wharf FEIR”) indicates that over the proposed 30-year lease, there would be a 64% probability that one or more spills greater than 1,000 barrels (42,000 gallons) would occur. Long Wharf FEIR, p. 4.1-35. The Long Wharf FEIR also predicts that a spill greater than 1,000 gallons would occur every 4 to 5 years at the Terminal and a spill of 42,000 gallons would occur every 29 years. Similarly, a spill from transiting tankers of over 100 gallons would occur every 290 years. Long Wharf FEIR, Table 4.1-13. Although the Long Wharf FEIR concludes that the probability of a spill is small, the consequences could be significant. Id., p. 4.1-45. The Long Wharf FEIR provides mitigation to reduce the probability of the occurrence of a spill, but not of its potential impact.

The Chevron Renewal Project would increase the import of high sulfur, heavy crudes, likely including Group V oils, which have a specific gravity greater than 1 and do not float on the water, and certain Group IV and other heavy oils that have a lower specific gravity but still sink to the bottom or remain suspended in the water column. These oils would result in more severe biological impacts than spills of the floating crudes evaluated in the Long Wharf FEIR for the following three reasons provided by Dr. Fox.

First, these heavier oils pose risks to biological resources that are not normally affected by floating crudes (shoreline habitats and marine birds). All water-column and benthic habitats are at increased risks from spills of nonfloating oils. These resources include fish, shellfish, seagrasses, and other benthic and water column biota. In San Francisco Bay, the more severely impacted organisms in a heavy crude spill would include Dungeness crabs, eelgrass beds, and

1728-129a Comment Letter 5.05

October 19, 2007 Page 6

threatened and endangered fish species including delta smelt, Chinook salmon, and tidewater goby.

Second, these heavy oils are unrecoverable once spilled and response operations are largely limited to locating and monitoring their movement. Thus, impacts would be long term. Oils suspended in the water column or deposited on the bottom are more likely to dissolve, resulting in higher concentrations of toxic fractions than from floating oils. Further, because dissolution is a slow process, exposure times are longer. Thus, the potential for chronic toxicity is greater.

Third, nonfloating oils often have high concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (“PAHs”), which are the primary source of both acute and chronic toxicity to aquatic organisms. Naphthalene compounds (two-ringed aromatics), which are present at elevated concentrations in heavy crudes, have been shown to be more toxic than lightweight aromatics, such as benzene and toluene, more commonly found in lighter crudes. Thus, even though heavy crudes have a smaller soluble fraction than lighter crudes, they can still be more acutely toxic to organisms in the water column because they are mixed into the water column without weathering, causing a higher fraction to dissolve.

Chevron admits that its Long Wharf has no reasonable technology for dealing with nonfloating oils. Long Wharf FEIR at p. 4.1-38. The Long Wharf FEIR recommends mitigation, but admits the impacts of spills of nonfloating oils larger than 50 barrels could remain significant. Ibid. Thus, increased imports of heavy crudes to support the Renewal Project would cause unique and significant biological and water quality impacts that have not been quantified or mitigated.

In sum, modification of the Chevron Refinery to allow it to process more high- sulfur, heavy crudes will result in significant biological and water quality impacts in the event of a spill. Other refineries in California are making similar modifications to address the change in supply of crude on the global market. Thus, the cumulative biological and water quality impacts of spills of high-sulfur, heavy crudes are significant and unmitigated. The DEIR must be corrected to cure this deficiency and be circulated for public review and comment.

1728-129a Comment Letter 5.05

October 19, 2007 Page 7

III. THE CITY MUST PREPARE AND RE-CIRCULATE A SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR

A supplemental or revised DEIR should be prepared and re-circulated for public review. CEQA requires a lead agency to re-circulate a DEIR when significant new information is added to the EIR following public review but before certification. (Pub. Res. Code § 21092.1.) The Guidelines clarify that new information is significant if “the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project” including, for example, “a disclosure showing that … [a] new significant environmental impact would result from the project.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.) As explained by a recent CEQA decision:

“The EIR must demonstrate that the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project were adequately investigated and discussed and it must permit the significant effects of the project to be considered in the full environmental context.” (Guidelines, § 15125(c)) We interpret this Guideline broadly in order to “afford the fullest possible protection to the environment.” (Kings County Farm Bureau, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720) In so doing, we ensure that the EIR’s analysis of significant effects, which is generated from this description of the environmental context, is as accurate as possible. (See also Remy et al., Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (10th ed. 1999), pp. 374-376.)

As discussed above, the Project will have numerous impacts not addressed in the DEIR, including impacts related to oil spills. A supplemental DEIR is required to disclose and analyze these impacts and to propose measures to mitigate the impacts.

IV. CONCLUSION

The DEIR fails to satisfy CEQA’s fundamental mandates of informing the public and decision makers of the potentially significant environmental impacts of a project, and imposing all feasible measures to mitigate those impacts to less than

1728-129a Comment Letter 5.05

October 19, 2007 Page 8

significant. The DEIR should be revised to address the shortcomings described above and in the attached document and re-circulated for public review.

Sincerely,

/s/

Suma Peesapati

SP:bh Attachments

1728-129a 5. Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

5.05 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Suma Peesapati, October 19, 2007 Responses to Comments ABJC#2-1 The commenter discusses the world supply of crude oil and quotes from the Draft EIR, p. 6-11, regarding the processing of sweet and sour crudes. The commenter defines “sweet” crude oil as having a sulfur content of 0.5% or less by weight and “sour” if the sulfur content is greater than 1%. These definitions vary, however; note that p. 8-4 of Chapter 8, Glossary, of the Draft EIR defines “sour” crude as having a sulfur content of 2.5% or more. See Master Response 2.2, Subsection 2.2.3 Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects in the Final EIR Volume 3.

ABJC#2-2 The commenter correctly notes the current and proposed sulfur content of crude oil processed by the Refinery. See Master Response 2.2, Subsection 2.2.3 (Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects) in the Final EIR Volume 3.

ABJC#2-3 There is no direct causal relationship between sulfur content and heavier crude. The relationships between sulfur content and the weight of the crude for those crude oils that are anticipated to be used at the Refinery are discussed in Master Response 2.2, Subsection 2.2.3 (Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects) in the Final EIR Volume 3.

As discussed in Master Response 2.2, the change in the crude slate expected at the Refinery is that the crudes would become more sour (i.e., contain more sulfur) and would not be heavier.

ABJC#2-4 See Response to Comment ABJC#2-3. The Proposed Project does not involve changing the weight range of crudes that would be processed at the Refinery. Those would continue to be a mix of “medium” crudes, as the Refinery is designed to process, from whatever sources of such crudes become available. However, because of the decline in North Slope crude oils, Chevron anticipates that the amount of sulfur in the mix of suitable available crude oils will increase. Therefore, the Proposed Project is designed to allow the Refinery to process crudes that have a 3% sulfur content, which is an increase from the current 2% sulfur content of crudes that are processed now at the Refinery. The additional sulfur would continue to be processed by the expanded capacity sulfur recovery units; some of this equipment (in particular, the three hydrogen purity sulfur removal units) would be upgraded as part of the Proposed Project. Therefore, although additional sulfur processing capacity would be added to the Refinery, there are no planned changes in the specific gravity of the crudes processed and no change in the risk of crude oil spills.

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.05-1 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late Received Comment Letters March 2008 5. Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

As noted in Master Response 2.2, Subsection 2.2.3 (Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects), it is incorrect to state that heavier crudes necessarily contain higher concentrations of metals or other constituents, or more-toxic components. In addition, please refer to Responses RWQCB-3 and RWQCB-4 in the Final EIR Volume 3.

ABJC#2-5 The Proposed Project would not involve the use of heavy crude oil. See Responses FOX-1, RWQCB-3, RWQCB-4 in the Final EIR Volume 3, and ABJC#2-4 in this document.

ABJC#2-6 See Master Response 2.2, subsection 2.2.3 (Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects) and Response FOX-2 in the Final EIR Volume 3, and ABJC#2-4 in this document.

ABJC#2-7 See Response FOX-1 and Master Response 2.2, subsection 2.2.3 (Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects) in the Final EIR Volume 3.

ABJC#2-8 The Proposed Project does not include any process or equipment changes that would facilitate the processing of heavy crudes at the Refinery, and the use of heavier crude oils is not anticipated. The Refinery now typically refines a mixture of Alaskan North Slope and Arab crude oils. The crude oils used would continue to be a mix of the intermediate and light crudes that the Refinery is designed to process. See Master Response 2.2, Subsection 2.2.3 (Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects) in the Final EIR Volume 3 and Response to Comment ABJC#2-4 above.

ABJC#2-9 See Master Response 2.2, Subsection 2.2.3 (Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects) in the Final EIR Volume 3 and Responses ABJC#2-4 and ABJC#2-8, above.

ABJC#2-10 See Master Response 2.2, Subsection 2.2.3 (Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects) in the Final EIR Volume 3 and Responses ABJC#2-4 and ABJC#2-8, above.

ABJC#2-11 See Master Response 2.2, Subsection 2.2.3 (Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects) in the Final EIR Volume 3 and Responses ABJC#2-4 and ABJC#2-8, above.

ABJC#2-12 See Master Response 2.2, Subsection 2.2.3 (Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects) in the Final EIR Volume 3 and Responses ABJC#2-4 and ABJC#2-8, above.

ABJC#2-13 See Master Response 2.2, Subsection 2.2.3 (Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects) in the Final EIR Volume 3 and Responses ABJC#2-4 and Response ABJC#2-8, above.

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.05-2 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late Received Comment Letters March 2008 5. Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

ABJC#2-14 The Draft EIR disclosed and analyzed the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. No significant new information has been added to the EIR following public review. Therefore, recirculation is not required. See Master Response 2.1 in the Final EIR Volume 3 and Response ABJC#2-8, above.

ABJC#2-15 This is a general comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The commenter’s specific concerns have been addressed above.

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.05-3 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late Received Comment Letters March 2008

Comment Letter 5.06

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT J. Phyllis Fox, Ph.D., REA II, QEP, PE, DEE 745 White Pine Ave. Rockledge, FL 32955 321-626-6885

Suma Peesapati Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080

Dear Ms. Peesapati:

I have reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Long Wharf Marine Terminal (“Long Wharf FEIR”) and the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project (“Renewal Project DEIR”) to determine whether they considered the biological and water quality impacts of the proposed changes in crude slates. Neither EIR considers the impact of the change in crude slates on water quality and biological resources. As discussed below, these impacts would be significant and should be evaluated in a supplemental environmental impact report.

The quality of the average crude refined in the United States has progressively become heavier and the sulfur content has progressively increased.1 The world supply of conventional light, sweet crudes is rapidly declining. Refiners around the world are upgrading their facilities to allow them to refine high-sulfur, heavy crudes that remain in abundance.2 This trend will only continue as light, sweet crudes become more scarce.

The no project alternative in the Renewal Project DEIR explains that “continued importation of sweet crude may not be feasible because future availability of sweet crude is in question. Approximately 75% of the world’s oil reserves are sour crude, and only

25% are sweet crude, while most of the current oil production (40%) and most of the world’s refineries are geared toward processing sweet crude.” Renewal Project DEIR, p. 11. Crude oil is defined as “sweet” if the sulfur content is 0.5% or less by weight and “sour” if the sulfur content is greater than 1.0%.

The Refinery currently can process crude oil with about 2% sulfur and the current crude mix has about 1.7% sulfur. “The Renewal Project would enable the Refinery to process crude mixes with a typical sulfur content of up to 3 percent.” Renewal Project DEIR, p. 3-26. One of the purposes of the Renewal Project is to expand the Refinery’s options for using a “wider range of crude oils, including the ability to process crude oils with higher sulfur contents” (Id. at p. 4.3-38) and to “process reliable supplies of globally available crude oils . . . including those with higher sulfur content.” Id. at p. 3-26.

These higher sulfur crudes typically weigh more per unit volume (i.e., have a higher density and thus are “heavier”) than lower sulfur crudes, especially 3% sulfur crudes, which rank among some of the heaviest.3 Even higher sulfur crudes than 3% could be included in a 3% “mix,” which might include, for example, Canadian tar sands or heavy Venezuelan crudes, which are closer and more secure than oils from Russia or the Middle East.

The Renewal Project DEIR fails to disclose whether the future crude slate will be heavier or lighter than the current slate. However, it is well known that as sulfur content goes up, the heaviness of the crude goes up (see cites in footnote 3), so it is inevitable that the Renewal Project will result in importing and processing heavier crudes. The DEIR ultimately discloses a new “Swing Tank for Heavy Crude Oil” to provide backup storage for heavy crudes, so clearly, some increase in heavy crudes is anticipated. Renewal Project DEIR, pp. 1-3, 3-6, 3-44. Further, the proposed upgrades are consistent with processing heavier crudes, e.g., increased hydrogen production capacity.4 The import of heavier, higher sulfur crudes may result in more serious biological and water quality impacts in the event of a spill.

2 Comment Letter 5.06

The Long Wharf FEIR evaluated the biological and water quality impacts of oil spills of the current slate of crudes, or crudes that predominately float on the water surface. These impacts are significant, even with mitigation. Long Wharf FEIR, Secs. 4.2 (p. 4.2-46 to 4.2-51) and 4.3. However, neither the Long Wharf FEIR nor the Renewal Project DEIR evaluated the impacts of changes in the crude slate on the nature and severity of water quality and biological impacts. As demonstrated below, the impacts are likely significant and should be evaluated in a supplemental EIR.

The impact of a crude spill on water quality and biological resources depends upon the composition of the crude and a variety of complex and interrelated physical, chemical and biological transformations.5 Neither EIR contains any of the basic information required to assess biological and water quality impacts. This information would include baseline and future crude oil composition and properties, including gravity, sulfur content, pour point, carbon residue, salt content, nitrogen content, distillation range, metals content, and other chemical composition data required to assess environmental impacts. Most of these parameters constitute the design basis for the existing Refinery and the proposed changes to the Refinery. Thus, they must be in Chevron’s possession and should be provided to the lead agency and used to assess biological and water quality impacts. The Project description is deficient because it contains none of this information. The potential significance of this information is discussed generally below.

Crude oil is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons consisting predominately of aliphatic, alicyclic and aromatic hydrocarbons (mostly paraffins, naphthenes, and aromatics) covering the carbon range from C1 to C60+. The relative amounts of these materials vary depending upon the source of the crude. The relative amounts also determine the environmental impacts of a crude spill. Neither EIR discloses the composition of either the current slate of crudes or the proposed future slate.

The lower molecular weight components of crude may dissolve, resulting in toxicity to aquatic biota. The intermediate fractions of crude may float and spread out on the water surface, forming emulsions that would foul marine birds, and/or adsorb to soil and sediment, impacting benthic organisms. The viscous, heavier components may agglomerate and sink to the bottom or remain suspended in the water column, posing risks to biological resources not normally impacted by spills.6 The proposed changes to the Refinery will accommodate much larger amounts of heavy crudes or crudes with higher heavy fractions than those currently processed.

It can be reasonably expected that large oil spills will occur in San Francisco Bay as a result of continuing to operate the Refinery. The Long Wharf FEIR indicates that

5 R.E. Jordan and J.R. Payne, Fate and Weathering of Petroleum Spills in the Marine Environment: A Literature Review and Synopsis, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1980 and National Research Council, Oil in the Sea, III Inputs, Fates, and Effects, 2003. 6 The American Petroleum Institute, High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical Challenge Program, Test Plan Crude Oil Category, submitted to the U.S. EPA, November 21, 2003.

3 Comment Letter 5.06

over the proposed 30-year lease, there would be a 64% probability that one or more spills greater than 1,000 barrels (42,000 gallons) would occur. Long Wharf FEIR, p. 4.1-35. The Long Wharf FEIR also predicts that a spill greater than 1,000 gallons would occur every 4 to 5 years at the Terminal and a spill of 42,000 gallons would occur every 29 years. Similarly, a spill from transiting tankers of over 100 gallons would occur every 290 years. Long Wharf FEIR, Table 4.1-13. Although the FEIR concludes that the probability of a spill is small, the consequences could be significant. Id., p. 4.1-45. The FEIR provides mitigation to reduce the probability of the occurrence of a spill, but not of its potential impact.

First, these heavier oils pose risks to biological resources that are not normally affected by floating crudes (shoreline habitats and marine birds). All water-column and benthic habitats are at increased risks from spills of nonfloating oils.8 These resources include fish, shellfish, seagrasses, and other benthic and water column biota. In San Francisco Bay, the more severely impacted organisms in a heavy crude spill would include Dungeness crabs, eelgrass beds, and threatened and endangered fish species including delta smelt, Chinook salmon, and tidewater goby.

Second, these heavy oils are unrecoverable once spilled and response operations are largely limited to locating and monitoring their movement. Thus, impacts would be long term. Oils suspended in the water column or deposited on the bottom are more likely to dissolve, resulting in higher concentrations of toxic fractions than from floating oils. Further, because dissolution is a slow process, exposure times are longer.9 Thus, the potential for chronic toxicity is greater.

Third, nonfloating oils often have high concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are the primary source of both acute and chronic toxicity to aquatic organisms. Naphthalene compounds (two-ringed aromatics), which are present at elevated concentrations in heavy crudes, have been shown to be more toxic than lightweight aromatics, such as benzene and toluene, more commonly found in lighter crudes.10 Thus, even though heavy crudes have a smaller soluble fraction than lighter crudes, they can still be more acutely toxic to organisms in the water column because

7 National Research Council, Spills of Nonfloating Oils: Risks and Response, 1999. 8 D.K. Scholz and others, Assessment of Risks Associated with the Shipment and Transfer of Group V Fuel Oils, HAZMAT Report No. 94-8, Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, NOAA, 1994. 9 S.C. Lee and others, A Study of the Long-term Weathering of Submerged and Overwashed Oil, EE-119, Environment Canada, 1989. 10 J.W. Anderson and others, The Toxicity of Dispersed and Undispersed Prudhoe Bay Crude Oil Fractions to Shrimp and Fish, In Proceedings of the 1987 Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, pp. 235-240.

4 Comment Letter 5.06 they are mixed into the water column without weathering, causing a higher fraction to dissolve.

Chevron admits that its Long Wharf has no reasonable technology for dealing with nonfloating oils. Long Wharf FEIR, p. 4.1-38. The Long Wharf FEIR recommends mitigation, but admits the impacts of spills of nonfloating oils larger than 50 barrels could remain significant. Ibid. Thus, increased imports of heavy crudes to support the Renewal Project would cause unique and significant biological and water quality impacts that have not been quantified or mitigated.

In sum, modification of the Chevron Refinery to allow it to process more high- sulfur, heavy crudes will result in significant biological and water quality impacts in the event of a spill. Other refineries in California are making similar modifications for similar reasons. Thus, the cumulative biological and water quality impacts of spills of high-sulfur, heavy crudes are significant and unmitigated by either the Long Wharf FEIR or the Renewal Project DEIR.

Sincerely,

Phyllis Fox, Ph.D, PE

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. Phyllis Fox, Ph.D, PE, DEE Environmental Management 745 White Pine Ave. Rockledge, FL 32955 321-626-6885 510-593-7576 [email protected]

Dr. Fox has over 35 years of experience in the field of environmental engineering, including air pollution control, air quality management, water quality and water supply investigations, hazardous waste investigations, environmental permitting, nuisance investigations, environmental impact reports, CEQA/NEPA documentation, risk assessments, and litigation support.

EDUCATION Ph.D. Environmental/Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1980. M.S. Environmental/Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1975. B.S. Physics (with high honors), University of Florida, Gainesville, 1971. Post-Graduate: S-Plus Data Analysis, MathSoft, 6/94. Air Pollutant Emission Calculations, UC Berkeley Extension, 6-7/94 Assessment, Control and Remediation of LNAPL Contaminated Sites, API and USEPA, 9/94 Pesticides in the TIE Process, SETAC, 6/96 Sulfate Minerals: Geochemistry, Crystallography, and Environmental Significance, Mineralogical Society of America/Geochemical Society, 11/00. Design of Gas Turbine Combined Cycle and Cogeneration Systems, Thermoflow, 12/00 Air-Cooled Steam Condensers and Dry- and Hybrid-Cooling Towers, Power-Gen, 12/01 Combustion Turbine Power Augmentation with Inlet Cooling and Wet Compression, Power-Gen , 12/01 CEQA Update, UC Berkeley Extension, 3/02 The Health Effects of Chemicals, Drugs, and Pollutants, UC Berkeley Extension, 4-5/02 Noise Exposure Assessment: Sampling Strategy and Data Acquisition, AIHA PDC 205, 6/02 Noise Exposure Measurement Instruments and Techniques, AIHA PDC 302, 6/02 Noise Control Engineering, AIHA PDC 432, 6/02 Optimizing Generation and Air Emissions, Power-Gen, 12/02 Utility Industry Issues, Power-Gen, 12/02 Multipollutant Emission Control, Coal-Gen, 8/03 Community Noise, AIHA PDC 104, 5/04 Cutting-Edge Topics in Noise and Hearing Conservation, AIHA 5/04 Selective Catalytic Reduction: From Planning to Operation, Power-Gen, 12/05 Improving the FGD Decision Process, Power-Gen, 12/05 E-Discovery, CEB, 6/06 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, FGD Project Delay Factors. McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, What Mercury Technologies Are Available, 9/14/06 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 2

McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, SCR Catalyst Choices, 10-12-06 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Particulate Choices for Low Sulfur Coal, 10/19/06 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Impact of PM2.5 on Power Plant Choices, 111/06 Cost Estimating and Tricks of the Trade – A Practical Approach, P159, 11/19/06 Process Equipment Cost Estimating by Ratio & Proportion, G127 11/19/06 Power Plant Air Quality Decisions, Power-Gen 11/06 Negotiating Permit Conditions, EEUC, 1/21/06 BACT for Utilities, EEUC, 1/21/06 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Chinese FGD/SCR Program & Impact on World, 2/1/07 McIlvaine Hot Top Hour, Mercury CEMS, 4/12/07 Coal-to-Liquids – A Timely Revival, 9th Electric Power, 4/30/07 th Advances in Multi-Pollutant and CO2 Control Technologies, 9 Electric Power, 4/30/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Measurement & Control of PM2.5, 5/16/07 Ethanol 101: Points to Consider When Building an Ethanol Plant, BBI International, 6/26/07

REGISTRATION

Registered Professional Engineer: Arizona (2001-present), California (2002-present), Florida (2001-present), Georgia (2002-present), Washington (2002-present), Wisconsin (2005-present) Board Certified Environmental Engineer, American Academy of Environmental Engineers, Certified in Air Pollution Control (DEE #01-20014), 2002-present Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP), Institute of Professional Environmental Practice (QEP #02-010007), 2001-present Class I Registered Environmental Assessor, California (REA-00704), 1988-present. Class II Registered Environmental Assessor, California (REA-20040), 2000-present

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY

Environmental Management, Principal, 1981-present Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Principal Investigator, 1977-1981 University of California, Berkeley, Program Manager, 1976-1977 Bechtel, Inc., Engineer, 1971-1976, 1964-1966

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

American Industrial Hygiene Association (2002-present) Air and Waste Management Association (1999-present) American Chemical Society (1981-present)

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 3

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2004-present) Phi Beta Kappa (1970-present) Sigma Pi Sigma (1970-present)

Who's Who Environmental Registry, PH Publishing, Fort Collins, CO, 1992. Who's Who in the World, Marquis Who's Who, Inc., Chicago, IL, 11th Ed., p. 371, 1993-present. Who's Who of American Women, Marquis Who's Who, Inc., Chicago, IL, 13th Ed., p. 264, 1984- present. Who's Who in Science and Engineering, Marquis Who's Who, Inc., New Providence, NJ, 5th Ed., p. 414, 1999-present. Who’s Who in America, Marquis Who’s Who, Inc., 59th Ed., 2005. Guide to Specialists on Toxic Substances, World Environment Center, New York, NY, p. 80, 1980. National Research Council Committee on Irrigation-Induced Water Quality Problems (Selenium), Subcommittee on Quality Control/Quality Assurance (1985-1990). National Research Council Committee on Surface Mining and Reclamation, Subcommittee on Oil Shale (1978-80)

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE

Performed environmental and engineering investigations, as outlined below, for a wide range of industrial and commercial facilities including refineries; reformulated fuels projects; petroleum distribution terminals; conventional and thermally enhanced oil production; underground storage tanks; pipelines; gasoline stations; landfills; railyards; hazardous waste treatment facilities; nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, wood, waste, gas, oil and coal-fired power plants; transmission lines; airports; hydrogen plants; petroleum coke calcining plants; asphalt plants; cement plants; incinerators; flares; manufacturing facilities (e.g., semiconductors, electronic assembly, aerospace components, printed circuit boards, amusement park rides); lanthanide processing plants; ammonia plants; urea plants; food processing plants; almond hulling facilities; composting facilities; grain processing facilities; grain elevators; ethanol production facilities; soy bean oil extraction plant; biodiesel plants; paint formulation plants; wastewater treatment plants; marine terminals and ports; gas processing plants; steel mills; iron nugget production facilities; railcar refinishing facility; battery manufacturing plants; pesticide manufacturing and repackaging facilities; pulp and paper mills; selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems; halogen acid furnaces; contaminated property redevelopment projects (e.g., Mission Bay, Southern Pacific Railyards, Moscone Center expansion, San Diego Padres Ballpark); residential developments; commercial office parks, campuses, and shopping centers; server farms; transportation plans; and a wide range of mines including sand and gravel, hard rock, limestone, nacholite, coal, molybdenum, gold, zinc, and oil shale.

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 4

EXPERT WITNESS/LITIGATION SUPPORT

For plaintiffs, expert witness in inverse condemnation case in which Port expanded maritime operations into residential neighborhoods, subjecting plaintiffs to noise, light, and diesel fumes. Measured real-time diesel particulate concentrations from marine vessels and tug boats on plaintiffs’ property. Reviewed documents, depositions, DVDs, and photographs provided by counsel. Deposed. Testified October 24, 2006. Ann Chargin, Richard Hackett, Carolyn Hackett, et al. v. Stockton Port District, Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin, Stockton Branch, No. CV021015. Judge ruled for plaintiffs.

For plaintiffs, expert witness in appeal of PSD permit issued to 850 MW coal fired boiler burning Powder River Basin coal (Iatan Unit 2) on BACT for particulate matter, sulfuric acid mist and opacity and emission calculations for alleged historic violations of PSD. Assisted in drafting technical comments, petition for review, discovery requests, and responses to discovery requests. Reviewed produced documents. Prepared expert report on BACT for particulate matter. Assisted with expert depositions. Deposed February 7, 8, 27, 28, 2007. In Re PSD Construction Permit Issued to Great Plains Energy, Kansas City Power & Light – Iatan Generating Station, Sierra Club v. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Great Plains Energy, and Kansas City Power & Light. Case settled March 27, 2007, providing

offsets for over 6 million ton/yr of CO2 and lower NOx and SO2 emission limits. For plaintiffs, expert witness in remedy phase of civil action relating to alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, for historic modifications of coal- fired boilers and associated equipment. Reviewed produced documents, prepared expert report on cost to retrofit 24 coal-fired power plants with scrubbers designed to remove 99% of the sulfur dioxide from flue gases. Prepared supplemental and expert report on cost estimates and BACT for SO2 for these 24 complaint units. Deposed 1/30/07 and 3/14/07. United States and State of New York et al. v. American Electric Power, In U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Consolidated Civil Action Nos. C2-99- 1182 and C2-99-1250.

For plaintiffs, expert witness in contested case hearing on BACT, enforceability, and alternatives analysis for a PSD permit issued for a 270-MW pulverized coal fired boiler burning Powder River Basin coal (City Utilities Springfield Unit 2). Reviewed permitting file and assisted counsel draft petition and prepare and respond to interrogatories and document requests. Reviewed interrogatory responses and produced documents. Assisted with expert depositions. Deposed August 2005. Evidentiary hearings October 2005. In the Matter of Linda Chipperfield and Sierra Club v. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Petition for Judicial Review filed by petitioners in Greene County Circuit Court, May 19, 2006.

For plaintiffs, expert witness in civil action relating to plume touchdowns at AEP’s Gavin coal-fired power plant. Assisted counsel draft interrogatories and document requests.

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 5

Reviewed responses to interrogatories and produced documents. Prepared expert report “Releases of Sulfuric Acid Mist from the Gavin Power Station.” The report evaluates sulfuric acid mist releases to determine if AEP complied with the requirements of CERCLA Section 103(a) and EPCRA Section 304. This report also discusses the formation, chemistry, release characteristics, and abatement of sulfuric acid mist in support of the claim that these releases present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health under Section 7002(a)(1)(B) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). Citizens Against Pollution v. Ohio Power Company, In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Civil Action No. 2-04-cv-371. Case settled 12-8-06.

For petitioners, expert witness in contested case hearing on BACT, enforceability, and emission estimates for an air permit issued to a 500-MW supercritical Power River Basin coal-fired boiler (Weston Unit 4). Assisted counsel prepare comments on draft air permit and respond to and draft discovery. Reviewed produced file, deposed (7/05), and prepared expert report on BACT and enforceability. Evidentiary hearings September 2005. In the Matter of an Air Pollution Control Construction Permit Issued to Wisconsin Public Service Corporation for the Construction and Operation of a 500 MW Pulverized Coal-fired Power Plant Known as Weston Unit 4 in Marathon County, Wisconsin, Case No. IH-04-21. Petitions for Judicial Review filed by petitioners and respondents in Brown County Circuit Court, May 2006.

For plaintiffs, adviser on technical issues related to Citizen Suit against U.S. EPA regarding failure to update New Source Performance Standards for petroleum refineries, 40 CFR 60, Subparts J, VV, and GGG. Our Children’s Earth Foundation and Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA et al. Case settled July 2005. CD No. C 05-00094 CW, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California – Oakland Division.

For interveners, reviewed proposed Consent Decree settling Clean Air Act violations due to historic modifications of boilers and associated equipment at two coal-fired power plants. In response to stay order, reviewed the record, selected one representative activity at each of seven generating units, and analyzed to identify CAA violations. Identified NSPS and NSR

violations for NOx, SO2, PM/PM10, and sulfuric acid mist. Summarized results in an expert report. United States of America, and Michael A. Cox, Attorney General of the State of Michigan, ex rel. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Plaintiffs, and Clean Wisconsin, Sierra Club, and Citizens' Utility Board, Intervenors, v. Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Defendant, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Civil Action No. 2:03-CV-00371-CNC.

For a coalition of Nevada labor organizations (ACE), reviewed preliminary determination to issue a Class I Air Quality Operating Permit to Construct and supporting files for a 250-MW pulverized coal-fired boiler (Newmont). Prepared about 100 pages of technical analyses and comments on BACT, MACT, emission calculations, and enforceability. Assisted counsel

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 6

draft petition and reply brief appealing PSD permit to U.S. EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB).

For petitioners and plaintiffs, reviewed and prepared comments on air quality and hazardous waste based on negative declaration for refinery ultra low sulfur diesel project located in SCAQMD. Reviewed responses to comments and prepare response. Prepare declaration and present oral testimony before SCAQMD Hearing Board on exempt sources (cooling towers) and calculation of potential to emit under NSR. Petition for writ of mandate filed March 2005. (Los Angeles Superior Court).

For amici seeking to amend a proposed Consent Decree to settle alleged NSR violations at Chevron refineries, reviewed proposed settlement, related files, subject modifications, and emission calculations. Prepared declaration on emission reductions, identification of NSR and NSPS violations, and BACT/LAER for FCCUs, heaters and boilers, flares, and sulfur recovery plants. U.S. et al. v. Chevron U.S.A., Northern District of California, Case No. C 03-04650. Memorandum and Order Entering Consent Decree issued June 2005. Case No. C 03-4650 CRB.

For petitioners, prepared declaration on enforceability of periodic monitoring requirements, in response to EPA’s revised interpretation of 40 CFR 70.6(c)(1). This revision limited additional monitoring required in Title V permits. 69 FR 3203 (Jan. 22, 2004). Environmental Integrity Project et al. v. EPA (U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia).

For interveners in application for authority to construct a 500 MW supercritical coal-fired generating unit before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, prepared pre-filed written direct and rebuttal testimony with oral cross examination and rebuttal on BACT and MACT (Weston 4). Prepared written comments on BACT, MACT, and enforceability on draft air permit for same facility.

For property owners in Nevada, evaluated the environmental impacts of a 1,450-MW coal- fired power plant proposed in a rural area adjacent to the Black Rock Desert and Granite Range, including emission calculations, air quality modeling, comments on proposed use permit to collect preconstruction monitoring data, and coordination with agencies and other interested parties. Project cancelled.

For environmental organizations, reviewed draft PSD permit for a 600-MW coal-fired power plant in West Virginia (Longview). Prepared comments on permit enforceability; coal

washing; BACT for SO2 and PM10; Hg MACT; and MACT for HCl, HF, non-Hg metallic HAPs, and enforceability. Assist plaintiffs draft petition appealing air permit. Retained as expert to develop testimony on MACT, BACT, offsets, enforceability. Participate in settlement discussions. Case settled July 2004.

For petitioners, reviewed record produced in discovery and prepared affidavit on emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds during startup of GE 7FA combustion

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 7

turbines. Sierra Club et al. v. Georgia Power Company (Northern District of Georgia). Summary Judgment Order issued December 14, 2004 granting plaintiffs’ motion as to opacity violations and startup not defense to violations.

For building trades, reviewed air quality permitting action for 1500-MW coal-fired power plant before the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection (Thoroughbred).

For petitioners, expert witness in administrative appeal of the PSD/Title V permit issued to a 1500-MW coal-fired power plant. Reviewed over 60,000 pages of produced documents, prepared discovery index, identified and assembled plaintiff exhibits. Deposed. Assisted counsel in drafting discovery requests, with over 30 depositions, witness cross examination, and brief drafting. Presented over 20 days of direct testimony, rebuttal and sur-rebuttal, with

cross examination on BACT for NOx, SO2, and PM/PM10; MACT for Hg and non-Hg metallic HAPs; emission estimates for purposes of Class I and II air modeling; risk assessment; and enforceability of permit limits. Evidentiary hearings from November 2003 to June 2004. Sierra Club et al. v. Natural Resources & Environmental Protection Cabinet, Division of Air Quality and Thoroughbred Generating Company et al. Hearing Officer Decision issued August 9, 2005 finding in favor of plaintiffs on counts as to risk, BACT

(IGCC/CFB, NOx, SO2, Hg, Be), single source, enforceability, and errors and omissions. Assist counsel draft exceptions. Cabinet Secretary issued Order April 11, 2006 denying Hearing Offer’s report, except as to NOx BACT, Hg, 99% SO2 control and certain errors and omissions.

For citizens group in Massachusetts, reviewed, commented on, and participated in permitting of pollution control retrofits of coal-fired power plant (Salem Harbor).

Assisted citizens group and labor union challenge issuance of conditional use permit for a 317,000 ft2 discount store in Honolulu without any environmental review. In support of a motion for preliminary injunction, prepared 7-page declaration addressing public health impacts of diesel exhaust from vehicles serving the Project. In preparation for trial, prepared 20-page preliminary expert report summarizing results of diesel exhaust and noise measurements at two big box retail stores in Honolulu, estimated diesel PM10 concentrations for Project using ISCST, prepared a cancer health risk assessment based on these analyses, and evaluated noise impacts.

Assisted environmental organizations to challenge the DOE Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Baja California Power and Sempra Energy Resources Cross- Border Transmissions Lines in the U.S. and four associated power plants located in Mexico (DOE EA-1391). Prepared 20-page declaration in support of motion for summary judgment addressing emissions, including CO2 and NH3, offsets, BACT, cumulative air quality impacts, alternative cooling systems, and water use and water quality impacts. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted in part. U.S. District Court, Southern District decision concluded that the Environmental Assessment and FONSI violated NEPA and the APA due to their inadequate analysis of the potential

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 8

controversy surrounding the project, water impacts, impacts from NH3 and CO2, alternatives, and cumulative impacts. Border Power Plant Working Group v. Department of Energy and Bureau of Land Management, Case No. 02-CV-513-IEG (POR) (May 2, 2003).

For Sacramento school, reviewed draft air permit issued for diesel generator located across from playfield. Prepared comments on emission estimates, enforceability, BACT, and health impacts of diesel exhaust. Case settled. BUG trap installed on the diesel generator.

Assisted unions in appeal of Title V permit issued by BAAQMD to carbon plant that manufactured coke. Reviewed District files, identified historic modifications that should have triggered PSD review, and prepared technical comments on Title V permit. Reviewed responses to comments and assisted counsel draft appeal to BAAQMD hearing board, opening brief, motion to strike, and rebuttal brief. Case settled.

Assisted California Central Coast city obtain controls on a proposed new city that would straddle the Ventura-Los Angeles County boundary. Reviewed several environmental impact reports, prepared an air quality analysis, a diesel exhaust health risk assessment, and detailed review comments. Governor intervened and State dedicated the land for conservation purposes April 2004.

Assisted Central California city to obtain controls on large alluvial sand quarry and asphalt plant proposing a modernization. Prepared comments on Negative Declaration on air quality, public health, noise, and traffic. Evaluated process flow diagrams and engineering reports to determine whether proposed changes increased plant capacity or substantially modified plant operations. Prepared comments on application for categorical exemption from CEQA. Presented testimony to County Board of Supervisors. Developed controls to mitigate impacts. Assisted counsel draft Petition for Writ. Case settled June 2002. Substantial improvements in plant operations were obtained including cap on throughput, dust control measures, asphalt plant loadout enclosure, and restrictions on truck routes.

Assisted oil companies on the California Central Coast in defending class action citizen’s lawsuit alleging health effects due to emissions from gas processing plant and leaking underground storage tanks. Reviewed regulatory and other files and advised counsel on merits of case. Case settled November 2001.

Assisted oil company on the California Central Coast in defending property damage claims arising out of a historic oil spill. Reviewed site investigation reports, pump tests, leachability studies, and health risk assessments, participated in design of additional site characterization studies to assess health impacts, and advised counsel on merits of case. Prepare health risk assessment.

Assisted unions in appeal of Initial Study/Negative Declaration ("IS/ND") for an MTBE phaseout project at a Bay Area refinery. Reviewed IS/ND and supporting agency permitting

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 9

files and prepared technical comments on air quality, groundwater, and public health impacts. Reviewed responses to comments and final IS/ND and ATC permits and assisted counsel to draft petitions and briefs appealing decision to Air District Hearing Board. Presented sworn direct and rebuttal testimony with cross examination on groundwater impacts of ethanol spills on hydrocarbon contamination at refinery. Hearing Board ruled 5 to 0 in favor of appellants, remanding ATC to district to prepare an EIR.

Assisted Florida cities in challenging the use of diesel and proposed BACT determinations in prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits issued to two 510-MW simple cycle peaking electric generating facilities and one 1,080-MW simple cycle/combined cycle facility. Reviewed permit applications, draft permits, and FDEP engineering evaluations, assisted counsel in drafting petitions and responding to discovery. Participated in settlement discussions. Cases settled or applications withdrawn.

Assisted large California city in federal lawsuit alleging peaker power plant was violating its federal permit. Reviewed permit file and applicant's engineering and cost feasibility study to reduce emissions through retrofit controls. Advised counsel on feasible and cost-effective NOx, SOx, and PM10 controls for several 1960s diesel-fired Pratt and Whitney peaker turbines. Case settled.

Assisted coalition of Georgia environmental groups in evaluating BACT determinations and permit conditions in PSD permits issued to several large natural gas-fired simple cycle and combined-cycle power plants. Prepared technical comments on draft PSD permits on BACT, enforceability of limits, and toxic emissions. Reviewed responses to comments, advised counsel on merits of cases, participated in settlement discussions, presented oral and written testimony in adjudicatory hearings, and provided technical assistance as required. Cases settled or won at trial.

Assisted construction unions in review of air quality permitting actions before the Indiana Department of Environmental Management ("IDEM") for several natural gas-fired simple cycle peaker and combined cycle power plants.

Assisted coalition of towns and environmental groups in challenging air permits issued to 523 MW dual fuel (natural gas and distillate) combined-cycle power plant in Connecticut. Prepared technical comments on draft permits and 60 pages of written testimony addressing emission estimates, startup/shutdown issues, BACT/LAER analyses, and toxic air emissions. Presented testimony in adjudicatory administrative hearings before the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection in June 2001 and December 2001.

Assisted various coalitions of unions, citizens groups, cities, public agencies, and developers in licensing and permitting of over 30 large combined cycle, simple cycle, and peaker power plants in California, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, and elsewhere. Prepare analyses of and comments on applications for certification, preliminary and final staff assessments, and permits issued by local agencies. Present written and oral testimony before California Energy Commission and Arizona Power Plant and Transmission

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 10

Line Siting Committee on hazards of ammonia use and transportation, health effects of air emissions, contaminated property issues, BACT/LAER issues related to SCR and SCONOx, criteria and toxic pollutant emission estimates, MACT analyses, air quality modeling, water supply and water quality issues, and methods to reduce water use, including dry cooling, parallel dry-wet cooling, hybrid cooling, and zero liquid discharge systems.

Assisted unions, cities, and neighborhood associations in challenging an EIR issued for the proposed expansion of the Oakland Airport. Reviewed two draft EIRs and prepared a health risk assessment and extensive technical comments on air quality and public health impacts. The California Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, ruled in favor of appellants and plaintiffs, concluding that the EIR "2) erred in using outdated information in assessing the emission of toxic air contaminants (TACs) from jet aircraft; 3) failed to support its decision not to evaluate the health risks associated with the emission of TACs with meaningful analysis," thus accepting my technical arguments and requiring the Port to prepare a new EIR. See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee, City of San Leandro, and City of Alameda et al. v. Board of Port Commissioners (August 30, 2001) 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 598.

Assisted lessor of former gas station with leaking underground storage tanks and TCE contamination from adjacent property. Lessor held option to purchase, which was forfeited based on misrepresentation by remediation contractor as to nature and extent of contamination. Remediation contractor purchased property. Reviewed regulatory agency files and advised counsel on merits of case. Case not filed.

Advised counsel on merits of several pending actions, including a Proposition 65 case involving groundwater contamination at an explosives manufacturing firm and two former gas stations with leaking underground storage tanks.

Assisted defendant foundry in Oakland in a lawsuit brought by neighbors alleging property contamination, nuisance, trespass, smoke, and health effects from foundry operation. Inspected and sampled plaintiff's property. Advised counsel on merits of case. Case settled.

Assisted business owner facing eminent domain eviction. Prepared technical comments on a negative declaration for soil contamination and public health risks from air emissions from a proposed redevelopment project in San Francisco in support of a CEQA lawsuit. Case settled.

Assisted neighborhood association representing residents living downwind of a Berkeley asphalt plant in separate nuisance and CEQA lawsuits. Prepared technical comments on air quality, odor, and noise impacts, presented testimony at commission and council meetings, participated in community workshops, and participated in settlement discussions. Cases settled. Asphalt plant was upgraded to include air emission and noise controls, including vapor collection system at truck loading station, enclosures for noisy equipment, and improved housekeeping.

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 11

Assisted a Fortune 500 residential home builder in claims alleging health effects from faulty installation of gas appliances. Conducted indoor air quality study, advised counsel on merits of case, and participated in discussions with plaintiffs. Case settled.

Assisted property owners in Silicon Valley in lawsuit to recover remediation costs from insurer for large TCE plume originating from a manufacturing facility. Conducted investigations to demonstrate sudden and accidental release of TCE, including groundwater modeling, development of method to date spill, preparation of chemical inventory, investigation of historical waste disposal practices and standards, and on-site sewer and storm drainage inspections and sampling. Prepared declaration in opposition to motion for summary judgment. Case settled.

Assisted residents in east Oakland downwind of a former battery plant in class action lawsuit alleging property contamination from lead emissions. Conducted historical research and dry deposition modeling that substantiated claim. Participated in mediation at JAMS. Case settled.

Assisted property owners in West Oakland who purchased a former gas station that had leaking underground storage tanks and groundwater contamination. Reviewed agency files and advised counsel on merits of case. Prepared declaration in opposition to summary judgment. Prepared cost estimate to remediate site. Participated in settlement discussions. Case settled.

Consultant to counsel representing plaintiffs in two Clean Water Act lawsuits involving selenium discharges into San Francisco Bay from refineries. Reviewed files and advised counsel on merits of case. Prepared interrogatory and discovery questions, assisted in deposing opposing experts, and reviewed and interpreted treatability and other technical studies. Judge ruled in favor of plaintiffs.

Assisted oil company in a complaint filed by a resident of a small California beach community alleging that discharges of tank farm rinse water into the sanitary sewer system caused hydrogen sulfide gas to infiltrate residence, sending occupants to hospital. Inspected accident site, interviewed parties to the event, and reviewed extensive agency files related to incident. Used chemical analysis, field simulations, mass balance calculations, sewer hydraulic simulations with SWMM44, atmospheric dispersion modeling with SCREEN3, odor analyses, and risk assessment calculations to demonstrate that the incident was caused by a faulty drain trap and inadequate slope of sewer lateral on resident's property. Prepared a detailed technical report summarizing these studies. Case settled.

Assisted large West Coast city in suit alleging that leaking underground storage tanks on city property had damaged the waterproofing on downgradient building, causing leaks in an underground parking structure. Reviewed subsurface hydrogeologic investigations and evaluated studies conducted by others documenting leakage from underground diesel and

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 12

gasoline tanks. Inspected, tested, and evaluated waterproofing on subsurface parking structure. Waterproofing was substandard. Case settled.

Assisted residents downwind of gravel mine and asphalt plant in Siskiyou County, California, in suit to obtain CEQA review of air permitting action. Prepared two declarations analyzing air quality and public health impacts. Judge ruled in favor of plaintiffs, closing mine and asphalt plant.

Assisted defendant oil company on the California Central Coast in class action lawsuit alleging property damage and health effects from subsurface petroleum contamination. Reviewed documents, prepared risk calculations, and advised counsel on merits of case. Participated in settlement discussions. Case settled.

Assisted defendant oil company in class action lawsuit alleging health impacts from remediation of petroleum contaminated site on California Central Coast. Reviewed documents, designed and conducted monitoring program, and participated in settlement discussions. Case settled.

Consultant to attorneys representing irrigation districts and municipal water districts to evaluate a potential challenge of USFWS actions under CVPIA section 3406(b)(2). Reviewed agency files and collected and analyzed hydrology, water quality, and fishery data. Advised counsel on merits of case. Case not filed.

Assisted residents downwind of a Carson refinery in class action lawsuit involving soil and groundwater contamination, nuisance, property damage, and health effects from air emissions. Reviewed files and provided advise on contaminated soil and groundwater, toxic emissions, and health risks. Prepared declaration on refinery fugitive emissions. Prepared deposition questions and reviewed deposition transcripts on air quality, soil contamination, odors, and health impacts. Case settled.

Assisted residents downwind of a Contra Costa refinery who were affected by an accidental release of naphtha. Characterized spilled naphtha, estimated emissions, and modeled ambient concentrations of hydrocarbons and sulfur compounds. Deposed. Presented testimony in binding arbitration at JAMS. Judge found in favor of plaintiffs.

Assisted residents downwind of Contra Costa County refinery in class action lawsuit alleging property damage, nuisance, and health effects from several large accidents as well as routine operations. Reviewed files and prepared analyses of environmental impacts. Prepared declarations, deposed, and presented testimony before jury in one trial and judge in second. Case settled.

Assisted business owner claiming damages from dust, noise, and vibration during a sewer construction project in San Francisco. Reviewed agency files and PM10 monitoring data and advised counsel on merits of case. Case settled.

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 13

Assisted residents downwind of Contra Costa County refinery in class action lawsuit alleging property damage, nuisance, and health effects. Prepared declaration in opposition to summary judgment, deposed, and presented expert testimony on accidental releases, odor, and nuisance before jury. Case thrown out by judge, but reversed on appeal and not retried.

Presented testimony in small claims court on behalf of residents claiming health effects from hydrogen sulfide from flaring emissions triggered by a power outage at a Contra Costa County refinery. Analyzed meteorological and air quality data and evaluated potential health risks of exposure to low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide. Judge awarded damages to plaintiffs.

Assisted construction unions in challenging PSD permit for an Indiana steel mill. Prepared technical comments on draft PSD permit, drafted 70-page appeal of agency permit action to the Environmental Appeals Board challenging permit based on faulty BACT analysis for electric arc furnace and reheat furnace and faulty permit conditions, among others, and drafted briefs responding to four parties. EPA Region V and the EPA General Counsel intervened as amici, supporting petitioners. EAB ruled in favor of petitioners, remanding permit to IDEM on three key issues, including BACT for the reheat furnace and lead emissions from the EAF. Drafted motion to reconsider three issues. Prepared 69 pages of technical comments on revised draft PSD permit. Drafted second EAB appeal addressing lead emissions from the EAF and BACT for reheat furnace based on European experience with SCR/SNCR. Case settled. Permit was substantially improved. See In re: Steel Dynamics, Inc., PSD Appeal Nos. 99-4 & 99-5 (EAB June 22, 2000).

Assisted defendant urea manufacturer in Alaska in negotiations with USEPA to seek relief from penalties for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. Reviewed and evaluated regulatory files and monitoring data, prepared technical analysis demonstrating that permit limits were not violated, and participated in negotiations with EPA to dismiss action. Fines were substantially reduced and case closed.

Assisted construction unions in challenging PSD permitting action for an Indiana grain mill. Prepared technical comments on draft PSD permit and assisted counsel draft appeal of agency permit action to the Environmental Appeals Board challenging permit based on faulty BACT analyses for heaters and boilers and faulty permit conditions, among others. Case settled.

As part of a consent decree settling a CEQA lawsuit, assisted neighbors of a large west coast port in negotiations with port authority to secure mitigation for air quality impacts. Prepared technical comments on mobile source air quality impacts and mitigation and negotiated a $9 million CEQA mitigation package. Currently representing neighbors on technical advisory committee established by port to implement the air quality mitigation program.

Assisted construction unions in challenging permitting action for a California hazardous waste incinerator. Prepared technical comments on draft permit, assisted counsel prepare

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 14

appeal of EPA permit to the Environmental Appeals Board. Participated in settlement discussions on technical issues with applicant and EPA Region 9. Case settled.

Assisted environmental group in challenging DTSC Negative Declaration on a hazardous waste treatment facility. Prepared technical comments on risk of upset, water, and health risks. Writ of mandamus issued.

Assisted several neighborhood associations and cities impacted by quarries, asphalt plants, and cement plants in Alameda, Shasta, Sonoma, and Mendocino counties in obtaining mitigations for dust, air quality, public health, traffic, and noise impacts from facility operations and proposed expansions.

For over 100 industrial facilities, commercial/campus, and redevelopment projects, developed the record in preparation for CEQA and NEPA lawsuits. Prepared technical comments on hazardous materials, solid wastes, public utilities, noise, worker safety, air quality, public health, water resources, water quality, traffic, and risk of upset sections of EIRs, EISs, initial studies, and negative declarations. Assisted counsel in drafting petitions and briefs and prepared declarations.

For several large commercial development projects and airports, assisted applicant and counsel prepare defensible CEQA documents, respond to comments, and identify and evaluate "all feasible" mitigation to avoid CEQA challenges. This work included developing mitigation programs to reduce traffic-related air quality impacts based on energy conservation programs, solar, low-emission vehicles, alternative fuels, exhaust treatments, and transportation management associations.

SITE INVESTIGATION/REMEDIATION/CLOSURE

Technical manager and principal engineer for characterization, remediation, and closure of waste management units at former Colorado oil shale plant. Constituents of concern included BTEX, As, 1,1,1-TCA, and TPH. Completed groundwater monitoring programs, site assessments, work plans, and closure plans for seven process water holding ponds, a refinery sewer system, and processed shale disposal area. Managed design and construction of groundwater treatment system and removal actions and obtained clean closure.

Principal engineer for characterization, remediation, and closure of process water ponds at a former lanthanide processing plant in Colorado. Designed and implemented groundwater monitoring program and site assessments and prepared closure plan.

Advised the city of Sacramento on redevelopment of two former railyards. Reviewed work plans, site investigations, risk assessment, RAPS, RI/FSs, and CEQA documents. Participated in the development of mitigation strategies to protect construction and utility workers and the public during remediation, redevelopment, and use of the site, including

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 15

buffer zones, subslab venting, rail berm containment structure, and an environmental oversight plan.

Provided technical support for the investigation of a former sanitary landfill that was redeveloped as single family homes. Reviewed and/or prepared portions of numerous documents, including health risk assessments, preliminary endangerment assessments, site investigation reports, work plans, and RI/FSs. Historical research to identify historic waste disposal practices to prepare a preliminary endangerment assessment. Acquired, reviewed, and analyzed the files of 18 federal, state, and local agencies, three sets of construction field notes, analyzed 21 aerial photographs and interviewed 14 individuals associated with operation of former landfill. Assisted counsel in defending lawsuit brought by residents alleging health impacts and diminution of property value due to residual contamination. Prepared summary reports.

Technical oversight of characterization and remediation of a nitrate plume at an explosives manufacturing facility in Lincoln, CA. Provided interface between owners and consultants. Reviewed site assessments, work plans, closure plans, and RI/FSs.

Consultant to owner of large western molybdenum mine proposed for NPL listing. Participated in negotiations to scope out consent order and develop scope of work. Participated in studies to determine premining groundwater background to evaluate applicability of water quality standards. Served on technical committees to develop alternatives to mitigate impacts and close the facility, including resloping and grading, various thickness and types of covers, and reclamation. This work included developing and evaluating methods to control surface runoff and erosion, mitigate impacts of acid rock drainage on surface and ground waters, and stabilize nine waste rock piles containing 328 million tons of pyrite-rich, mixed volcanic waste rock (andesites, rhyolite, tuff). Evaluated stability of waste rock piles. Represented client in hearings and meetings with state and federal oversight agencies.

REGULATORY PERMITTING/NEGOTIATIONS

Reviewed and assisted interested parties prepare comments on proposed Kentucky air toxic regulations at 401 KAR 64:005, 64:010, 64:020, and 64:030 (June 2007).

Prepared comments on proposed Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Small Industrial-Commercial-Industrial Steam Generating Units, 70 FR 9706 (February 28, 2005).

Prepared comments on Louisville Air Pollution Control District proposed Strategic Toxic Air Reduction regulations.

Prepared comments and analysis of BAAQMD Regulation, Rule 11, Flare Monitoring at Petroleum Refineries.

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 16

Prepared comments on Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electricity Utility Steam Generating Units (MACT standards for coal-fired power plants).

Prepared Authority to Construct Permit for remediation of a large petroleum-contaminated site on the Central Coast. Negotiated conditions with agencies and secured permits.

Prepared Authority to Construct Permit for remediation of a former oil field on the Central Coast. Participated in negotiations with agencies and secured permits.

Prepared and/or reviewed hundreds of environmental permits, including NPDES, UIC, Stormwater, Authority to Construct, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment New Source Review, and RCRA, among others.

Participated in the development of the CARB document, Guidance for Power Plant Siting and Best Available Control Technology, including attending public workshops and filing technical comments.

Performed data analyses in support of adoption of emergency power restoration standards by the Public Utilities Commission for “major” power outages, where major is an outage that simultaneously affects 10% of the customer base.

Drafted portions of the Good Neighbor Ordinance to grant Contra Costa County greater authority over safety of local industry, particularly chemical plants and refineries.

Participated in drafting BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 28, Pressure Relief Devices, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, draft rules and other technical materials, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and costs of methods to control PRV releases, and negotiations with staff.

Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 18, Valves and Connectors, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and cost of low-leak technology, and negotiations with staff.

Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 25, Pumps and Compressors, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules, and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and costs of low-leak and seal-less technology, and negotiations with staff.

Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 5, Storage of Organic Liquids, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules, and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and costs of controlling tank emissions, and presentation of testimony before the Board.

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 17

Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 18, Valves and Connectors at Petroleum Refinery Complexes, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and costs of low-leak technology, and presentation of testimony before the Board.

Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 22, Valves and Flanges at Chemical Plants, etc, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules, and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and costs of low-leak technology, and presentation of testimony before the Board.

Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 25, Pump and Compressor Seals, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules, and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability of low-leak technology, and presentation of testimony before the Board.

Participated in the development of the BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5, Toxics, including participation in public workshops, review of staff proposals, and preparation of technical comments.

Participated in the development of SCAQMD Rule 1402, Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources, and proposed amendments to Rule 1401, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants, in 1993, including review of staff proposals and preparation of technical comments on same.

Participated in the development of the Sunnyvale Ordinance to Regulate the Storage, Use and Handling of Toxic Gas, which was designed to provide engineering controls for gases that are not otherwise regulated by the Uniform Fire Code.

Participated in the drafting of the Statewide Water Quality Control Plans for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries, including participation in workshops, review of draft plans, preparation of technical comments on draft plans, and presentation of testimony before the SWRCB.

Participated in developing Se permit effluent limitations for the five Bay Area refineries, including review of staff proposals, statistical analyses of Se effluent data, review of literature on aquatic toxicity of Se, preparation of technical comments on several staff proposals, and presentation of testimony before the Bay Area RWQCB.

Represented the California Department of Water Resources in the 1991 Bay-Delta Hearings before the State Water Resources Control Board, presenting sworn expert testimony with cross examination and rebuttal on a striped bass model developed by the California Department of Fish and Game.

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 18

Represented the State Water Contractors in the 1987 Bay-Delta Hearings before the State Water Resources Control Board, presenting sworn expert testimony with cross examination and rebuttal on natural flows, historical salinity trends in San Francisco Bay, Delta outflow, and hydrodynamics of the South Bay.

Represented interveners in the licensing of over 20 natural-gas-fired power plants and one coal gasification plant at the California Energy Commission and elsewhere. Reviewed and prepared technical comments on applications for certification, preliminary staff assessments, final staff assessments, preliminary determinations of compliance, final determinations of compliance, and prevention of significant deterioration permits in the areas of air quality, water supply, water quality, biology, public health, worker safety, transportation, site contamination, cooling systems, and hazardous materials. Presented written and oral testimony in evidentiary hearings with cross examination and rebuttal. Participated in technical workshops.

Represented several parties in the proposed merger of San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison. Prepared independent technical analyses on health risks, air quality, and water quality. Presented written and oral testimony before the Public Utilities Commission administrative law judge with cross examination and rebuttal.

Represented a PRP in negotiations with local health and other agencies to establish impact of subsurface contamination on overlying residential properties. Reviewed health studies prepared by agency consultants and worked with agencies and their consultants to evaluate health risks. WATER QUALITY/RESOURCES

Directed and participated in research on environmental impacts of energy development in the Colorado River Basin, including contamination of surface and subsurface waters and modeling of flow and chemical transport through fractured aquifers.

Played a major role in Northern California water resource planning studies since the early 1970s. Prepared portions of the Basin Plans for the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Delta basins including sections on water supply, water quality, beneficial uses, waste load allocation, and agricultural drainage. Developed water quality models for the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers.

Conducted hundreds of studies over the past 30 years on Delta water supplies and the impacts of exports from the Delta on water quality and biological resources of the Central Valley, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and San Francisco Bay. Typical examples include: 1. Evaluate historical trends in salinity, temperature, and flow in San Francisco Bay and upstream rivers to determine impacts of water exports on the estuary;

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 19

2. Evaluate the role of exports and natural factors on the food web by exploring the relationship between salinity and primary productivity in San Francisco Bay, upstream rivers, and ocean; 3. Evaluate the effects of exports, other in-Delta, and upstream factors on the abundance of salmon and striped bass; 4. Review and critique agency fishery models that link water exports with the abundance of striped bass and salmon; 5. Develop a model based on GLMs to estimate the relative impact of exports, water facility operating variables, tidal phase, salinity, temperature, and other variables on the survival of salmon smolts as they migrate through the Delta; 6. Reconstruct the natural hydrology of the Central Valley using water balances, vegetation mapping, reservoir operation models to simulate flood basins, precipitation records, tree ring research, and historical research; 7. Evaluate the relationship between biological indicators of estuary health and down-estuary position of a salinity surrogate (X2); 8. Use real-time fisheries monitoring data to quantify impact of exports on fish migration; 9. Refine/develop statistical theory of autocorrelation and use to assess strength of relationships between biological and flow variables; 10. Collect, compile, and analyze water quality and toxicity data for surface waters in the Central Valley to assess the role of water quality in fishery declines; 11. Assess mitigation measures, including habitat restoration and changes in water project operation, to minimize fishery impacts; 12. Evaluate the impact of unscreened agricultural water diversions on abundance of larval fish; 13. Prepare and present testimony on the impacts of water resources development on Bay hydrodynamics, salinity, and temperature in water rights hearings; 14. Evaluate the impact of boat wakes on shallow water habitat, including interpretation of historical aerial photographs; 15. Evaluate the hydrodynamic and water quality impacts of converting Delta islands into reservoirs; 16. Use a hydrodynamic model to simulate the distribution of larval fish in a tidally influenced estuary; 17. Identify and evaluate non-export factors that may have contributed to fishery declines, including predation, shifts in oceanic conditions, aquatic toxicity from

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 20

pesticides and mining wastes, salinity intrusion from channel dredging, loss of riparian and marsh habitat, sedimentation from upstream land alternations, and changes in dissolved oxygen, flow, and temperature below dams.

Developed, directed, and participated in a broad-based research program on environmental issues and control technology for energy industries including petroleum, oil shale, coal mining, and coal slurry transport. Research included evaluation of air and water pollution, development of novel, low-cost technology to treat and dispose of wastes, and development and application of geohydrologic models to evaluate subsurface contamination from in-situ retorting. The program consisted of government and industry contracts and employed 45 technical and administrative personnel.

Coordinated an industry task force established to investigate the occurrence, causes, and solutions for corrosion/erosion and mechanical/engineering failures in the waterside systems (e.g., condensers, steam generation equipment) of power plants. Corrosion/erosion failures caused by water and steam contamination that were investigated included waterside corrosion caused by poor microbiological treatment of cooling water, steam-side corrosion caused by ammonia-oxygen attack of copper alloys, stress-corrosion cracking of copper alloys in the air cooling sections of condensers, tube sheet leaks, oxygen in-leakage through condensers, volatilization of silica in boilers and carry over and deposition on turbine blades, and iron corrosion on boiler tube walls. Mechanical/engineering failures investigated included: steam impingement attack on the steam side of condenser tubes, tube-to-tube-sheet joint leakage, flow-induced vibration, structural design problems, and mechanical failures due to stresses induced by shutdown, startup and cycling duty, among others. Worked with electric utility plant owners/operators, condenser and boiler vendors, and architect/engineers to collect data to document the occurrence of and causes for these problems, prepared reports summarizing the investigations, and presented the results and participated on a committee of industry experts tasked with identifying solutions to prevent condenser failures.

Evaluated the cost effectiveness and technical feasibility of using dry cooling and parallel dry-wet cooling to reduce water demands of several large natural-gas fired power plants in California and Arizona.

Designed and prepared cost estimates for several dry cooling systems (e.g., fin fan heat exchangers) used in chemical plants and refineries.

Designed, evaluated, and costed several zero liquid discharge systems for power plants.

Evaluated the impact of agricultural and mining practices on surface water quality of Central Valley steams. Represented municipal water agencies on several federal and state advisory committees tasked with gathering and assessing relevant technical information, developing work plans, and providing oversight of technical work to investigate toxicity issues in the watershed.

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 21

AIR QUALITY/PUBLIC HEALTH

Prepared or reviewed the air quality and public health sections of hundreds of EIRs and EISs on a wide range of industrial, commercial and residential projects.

Prepared or reviewed hundreds of NSR and PSD permits for a wide range of industrial facilities.

Designed, implemented, and directed a 2-year-long community air quality monitoring program to assure that residents downwind of a petroleum-contaminated site were not impacted during remediation of petroleum-contaminated soils. The program included real- time monitoring of particulates, diesel exhaust, and BTEX and time integrated monitoring for over 100 chemicals.

Designed, implemented, and directed a 5-year long source, industrial hygiene, and ambient monitoring program to characterize air emissions, employee exposure, and downwind environmental impacts of a first-generation shale oil plant. The program included stack monitoring of heaters, boilers, incinerators, sulfur recovery units, rock crushers, API separator vents, and wastewater pond fugitives for arsenic, cadmium, chlorine, chromium, mercury, 15 organic indicators (e.g., quinoline, pyrrole, benzo(a)pyrene, thiophene, benzene), sulfur gases, hydrogen cyanide, and ammonia. In many cases, new methods had to be developed or existing methods modified to accommodate the complex matrices of shale plant gases.

Conducted investigations on the impact of diesel exhaust from truck traffic from a wide range of facilities including mines, large retail centers, light industrial uses, and sports facilities. Conducted traffic surveys, continuously monitored diesel exhaust using an aethalometer, and prepared health risk assessments using resulting data.

Conducted indoor air quality investigations to assess exposure to natural gas leaks, pesticides, molds and fungi, soil gas from subsurface contamination, and outgasing of carpets, drapes, furniture and construction materials. Prepared health risk assessments using collected data.

Prepared health risk assessments, emission inventories, air quality analyses, and assisted in the permitting of over 70 1 to 2 MW emergency diesel generators.

Prepare over 100 health risk assessments, endangerment assessments, and other health-based studies for a wide range of industrial facilities.

Developed methods to monitor trace elements in gas streams, including a continuous real- time monitor based on the Zeeman atomic absorption spectrometer, to continuously measure mercury and other elements.

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 22

Performed nuisance investigations (odor, noise, dust, smoke, indoor air quality, soil contamination) for businesses, industrial facilities, and residences located proximate to and downwind of pollution sources.

PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS (Partial List - Representative Publications)

J.P. Fox, T.P. Rose, and T.L. Sawyer, Isotope Hydrology of a Spring-fed Waterfall in Fractured Volcanic Rock, Submitted to Journal of Hydrology, 2006. C.E. Lambert, E.D. Winegar, and Phyllis Fox, Ambient and Human Sources of Hydrogen Sulfide: An Explosive Topic, Air & Waste Management Association, June 2000, Salt Lake City, UT. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District and San Luis Obispo County Public Health Department, Community Monitoring Program, February 8, 1999. The Bay Institute, From the Sierra to the Sea. The Ecological History of the San Francisco Bay- Delta Watershed, 1998. J. Phyllis Fox, Well Interference Effects of HDPP’s Proposed Wellfield in the Victor Valley Water District, Prepared for the California Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE), October 12, 1998. J. Phyllis Fox, Air Quality Impacts of Using CPVC Pipe in Indoor Residential Potable Water Systems, Report Prepared for California Pipe Trades Council, California Firefighters Association, and other trade associations, August 29, 1998. J. Phyllis Fox and others, Authority to Construct Avila Beach Remediation Project, Prepared for Unocal Corporation and submitted to San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, June 1998. J. Phyllis Fox and others, Authority to Construct Former Guadalupe Oil Field Remediation Project, Prepared for Unocal Corporation and submitted to San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, May 1998. J. Phyllis Fox and Robert Sears, Health Risk Assessment for the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport Proposed Airport Development Program, Prepared for Plumbers & Steamfitters U.A. Local 342, December 15, 1997. Levine-Fricke-Recon (Phyllis Fox and others), Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Work Plan for the Study Area Operable Unit, Former Solano County Sanitary Landfill, Benicia, California, Prepared for Granite Management Co. for submittal to DTSC, September 26, 1997. Phyllis Fox and Jeff Miller, "Fathead Minnow Mortality in the Sacramento River," IEP Newsletter, v. 9, n. 3, 1996.

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 23

Jud Monroe, Phyllis Fox, Karen Levy, Robert Nuzum, Randy Bailey, Rod Fujita, and Charles Hanson, Habitat Restoration in Aquatic Ecosystems. A Review of the Scientific Literature Related to the Principles of Habitat Restoration, Part Two, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) Report, 1996. Phyllis Fox and Elaine Archibald, Aquatic Toxicity and Pesticides in Surface Waters of the Central Valley, California Urban Water Agencies (CUWA) Report, September 1997. Phyllis Fox and Alison Britton, Evaluation of the Relationship Between Biological Indicators and the Position of X2, CUWA Report, 1994. Phyllis Fox and Alison Britton, Predictive Ability of the Striped Bass Model, WRINT DWR-206, 1992. J. Phyllis Fox, An Historical Overview of Environmental Conditions at the North Canyon Area of the Former Solano County Sanitary Landfill, Report Prepared for Solano County Department of Environmental Management, 1991. J. Phyllis Fox, An Historical Overview of Environmental Conditions at the East Canyon Area of the Former Solano County Sanitary Landfill, Report Prepared for Solano County Department of Environmental Management, 1991. Phyllis Fox, Trip 2 Report, Environmental Monitoring Plan, Parachute Creek Shale Oil Program, Unocal Report, 1991. J. P. Fox and others, "Long-Term Annual and Seasonal Trends in Surface Salinity of San Francisco Bay," Journal of Hydrology, v. 122, p. 93-117, 1991. J. P. Fox and others, "Reply to Discussion by D.R. Helsel and E.D. Andrews on Trends in Freshwater Inflow to San Francisco Bay from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta," Water Resources Bulletin, v. 27, no. 2, 1991. J. P. Fox and others, "Reply to Discussion by Philip B. Williams on Trends in Freshwater Inflow to San Francisco Bay from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta," Water Resources Bulletin, v. 27, no. 2, 1991. J. P. Fox and others, "Trends in Freshwater Inflow to San Francisco Bay from the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta," Water Resources Bulletin, v. 26, no. 1, 1990. J. P. Fox, "Water Development Increases Freshwater Flow to San Francisco Bay," SCWC Update, v. 4, no. 2, 1988. J. P. Fox, Freshwater Inflow to San Francisco Bay Under Natural Conditions, State Water Contracts, Exhibit 262, 58 pp., 1987. J. P. Fox, "The Distribution of Mercury During Simulated In-Situ Oil Shale Retorting," Environmental Science and Technology, v. 19, no. 4, pp. 316-322, 1985.

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 24

J. P. Fox, "El Mercurio en el Medio Ambiente: Aspectos Referentes al Peru," (Mercury in the Environment: Factors Relevant to Peru) Proceedings of Simposio Los Pesticidas y el Medio Ambiente," ONERN-CONCYTEC, Lima, Peru, April 25-27, 1984. (Also presented at Instituto Tecnologico Pesquero and Instituto del Mar del Peru.) J. P. Fox, "Mercury, Fish, and the Peruvian Diet," Boletin de Investigacion, Instituto Tecnologico Pesquero, Lima, Peru, v. 2, no. 1, pp. 97-116, l984. J. P. Fox, P. Persoff, A. Newton, and R. N. Heistand, "The Mobility of Organic Compounds in a Codisposal System," Proceedings of the Seventeenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1984. P. Persoff and J. P. Fox, "Evaluation of Control Technology for Modified In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts," Proceedings of the Sixteenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1983. J. P. Fox, Leaching of Oil Shale Solid Wastes: A Critical Review, University of Colorado Report, 245 pp., July 1983. J. P. Fox, Source Monitoring for Unregulated Pollutants from the White River Oil Shale Project, VTN Consolidated Report, June 1983. A. S. Newton, J. P. Fox, H. Villarreal, R. Raval, and W. Walker II, Organic Compounds in Coal Slurry Pipeline Waters, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-15121, 46 pp., Sept. 1982. M. Goldstein et al., High Level Nuclear Waste Standards Analysis, Regulatory Framework Comparison, Battelle Memorial Institute Report No. BPMD/82/E515-06600/3, Sept. 1982. J. P. Fox et al., Literature and Data Search of Water Resource Information of the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming Oil Shale Basins, Vols. 1-12, Bureau of Land Management, 1982. A. T. Hodgson, M. J. Pollard, G. J. Harris, D. C. Girvin, J. P. Fox, and N. J. Brown, Mercury Mass Distribution During Laboratory and Simulated In-Situ Retorting, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-12908, 39 pp., Feb. 1982. E. J. Peterson, A. V. Henicksman, J. P. Fox, J. A. O'Rourke, and P. Wagner, Assessment and Control of Water Contamination Associated with Shale Oil Extraction and Processing, Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-9084-PR, 54 pp., April 1982. P. Persoff and J. P. Fox, Control Technology for In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-14468, 118 pp., Dec. 1982. J. P. Fox, Codisposal Evaluation: Environmental Significance of Organic Compounds, Development Engineering Report, 104 pp., April 1982. J. P. Fox, A Proposed Strategy for Developing an Environmental Water Monitoring Plan for the Paraho-Ute Project, VTN Consolidated Report, Sept. 1982.

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 25

J. P. Fox, D. C. Girvin, and A. T. Hodgson, "Trace Elements in Oil Shale Materials," Energy and Environmental Chemistry, Fossil Fuels, v.1, pp. 69-101, 1982. M. Mehran, T. N. Narasimhan, and J. P. Fox, "Hydrogeologic Consequences of Modified In-situ Retorting Process, Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado," Proceedings of the Fourteenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1981 (LBL-12063). U. S. DOE (J. P. Fox and others), Western Oil Shale Development: A Technology Assessment, v. 1-9, Pacific Northwest Laboratory Report PNL-3830, 1981. J. P. Fox (ed), "Oil Shale Research," Chapter from the Energy and Environment Division Annual Report 1980, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11989, 82 pp., 1981 (author or coauthor of four articles in report). J. P. Fox, The Partitioning of Major, Minor, and Trace Elements during In-Situ Oil Shale Retorting, Ph.D. Dissertation, U. of Ca., Berkeley, also Report LBL-9062, 441 pp., 1980 (Diss. Abst. Internat., v. 41, no. 7, 1981). J.P. Fox, "Elemental Composition of Simulated In Situ Oil Shale Retort Water," Analysis of Waters Associated with Alternative Fuel Production, ASTM STP 720, L.P. Jackson and C.C. Wright, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 101-128, 1981. J. P. Fox, P. Persoff, P. Wagner, and E. J. Peterson, "Retort Abandonment -- Issues and Research Needs," in Oil Shale: the Environmental Challenges, K. K. Petersen (ed.), p. 133, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11197). J. P. Fox and T. E. Phillips, "Wastewater Treatment in the Oil Shale Industry," in Oil Shale: the Environmental Challenges, K. K. Petersen (ed.), p. 253, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11214). R. D. Giauque, J. P. Fox, J. W. Smith, and W. A. Robb, "Geochemical Studies of Two Cores from the Green River Oil Shale Formation," Transactions, American Geophysical Union, v. 61, no. 17, 1980. J. P. Fox, "The Elemental Composition of Shale Oils," Abstracts of Papers, 179th National Meeting, ISBN 0-8412-0542-6, Abstract No. FUEL 17, 1980. J. P. Fox and P. Persoff, "Spent Shale Grouting of Abandoned In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts," Proceedings of Second U.S. DOE Environmental Control Symposium, CONF-800334/1, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10744). P. K. Mehta, P. Persoff, and J. P. Fox, "Hydraulic Cement Preparation from Lurgi Spent Shale," Proceedings of the Thirteenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11071). F. E. Brinckman, K. L. Jewett, R. H. Fish, and J. P. Fox, "Speciation of Inorganic and Organoarsenic Compounds in Oil Shale Process Waters by HPLC Coupled with Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption (GFAA) Detectors," Abstracts of Papers, Div. of Geochemistry,

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 26

Paper No. 20, Second Chemical Congress of the North American Continent, August 25-28, 1980, Las Vegas (1980). J. P. Fox, D. E. Jackson, and R. H. Sakaji, "Potential Uses of Spent Shale in the Treatment of Oil Shale Retort Waters," Proceedings of the Thirteenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11072). J. P. Fox, The Elemental Composition of Shale Oils, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL- 10745, 1980. R. H. Fish, J. P. Fox, F. E. Brinckman, and K. L. Jewett, Fingerprinting Inorganic and Organoarsenic Compounds in Oil Shale Process Waters Using a Liquid Chromatograph Coupled with an Atomic Absorption Detector, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL- 11476, 1980. National Academy of Sciences (J. P. Fox and others), Surface Mining of Non-Coal Minerals, Appendix II: Mining and Processing of Oil Shale and Tar Sands, 222 pp., 1980. J. P. Fox, "Elemental Composition of Simulated In-Situ Oil Shale Retort Water," in Analysis of Waters Associated with Alternative Fuel Production, ASTM STP 720, L. P. Jackson and C. C. Wright (eds.), American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 101-128, 1980. R. D. Giauque, J. P. Fox, and J. W. Smith, Characterization of Two Core Holes from the Naval Oil Shale Reserve Number 1, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10809, 176 pp., December 1980. B. M. Jones, R. H. Sakaji, J. P. Fox, and C. G. Daughton, "Removal of Contaminative Constituents from Retort Water: Difficulties with Biotreatment and Potential Applicability of Raw and Processed Shales," EPA/DOE Oil Shale Wastewater Treatability Workshop, December 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-12124). J. P. Fox, Water-Related Impacts of In-Situ Oil Shale Processing, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-6300, 327 p., December 1980. M. Mehran, T. N. Narasimhan, and J. P. Fox, An Investigation of Dewatering for the Modified In-Situ Retorting Process, Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11819, 105 p., October 1980. J. P. Fox (ed.) "Oil Shale Research," Chapter from the Energy and Environment Division Annual Report 1979, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10486, 1980 (author or coauthor of eight articles). E. Ossio and J. P. Fox, Anaerobic Biological Treatment of In-Situ Oil Shale Retort Water, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10481, March 1980. J. P. Fox, F. H. Pearson, M. J. Kland, and P. Persoff, Hydrologic and Water Quality Effects and Controls for Surface and Underground Coal Mining -- State of Knowledge, Issues, and Research Needs, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11775, 1980.

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 27

D. C. Girvin, T. Hadeishi, and J. P. Fox, "Use of Zeeman Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy for the Measurement of Mercury in Oil Shale Offgas," Proceedings of the Oil Shale Symposium: Sampling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA-600/9-80-022, March 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8888). D. S. Farrier, J. P. Fox, and R. E. Poulson, "Interlaboratory, Multimethod Study of an In-Situ Produced Oil Shale Process Water," Proceedings of the Oil Shale Symposium: Sampling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA-600/9-80-022, March 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9002). J. P. Fox, J. C. Evans, J. S. Fruchter, and T. R. Wildeman, "Interlaboratory Study of Elemental Abundances in Raw and Spent Oil Shales," Proceedings of the Oil Shale Symposium: Sampling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA-600/9-80-022, March 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8901). J. P. Fox, "Retort Water Particulates," Proceedings of the Oil Shale Symposium: Sampling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA-600/9-80-022, March 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8829). P. Persoff and J. P. Fox, "Control Strategies for In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts," Proceedings of the Twelfth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9040). J. P. Fox and D. L. Jackson, "Potential Uses of Spent Shale in the Treatment of Oil Shale Retort Waters," Proceedings of the DOE Wastewater Workshop, Washington, D. C., June 14-15, 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9716). J. P. Fox, K. K. Mason, and J. J. Duvall, "Partitioning of Major, Minor, and Trace Elements during Simulated In-Situ Oil Shale Retorting," Proceedings of the Twelfth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9030). P. Persoff and J. P. Fox, Control Strategies for Abandoned In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8780, 106 pp., October 1979. D. C. Girvin and J. P. Fox, On-Line Zeeman Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy for Mercury Analysis in Oil Shale Gases, Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA-600/7-80-130, 95 p., August 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9702). J. P. Fox, Water Quality Effects of Leachates from an In-Situ Oil Shale Industry, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8997, 37 pp., April 1979. J. P. Fox (ed.), "Oil Shale Research," Chapter from the Energy and Environment Division Annual Report 1978, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9857 August 1979 (author or coauthor of seven articles).

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.06

J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 28

J. P. Fox, P. Persoff, M. M. Moody, and C. J. Sisemore, "A Strategy for the Abandonment of Modified In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts," Proceedings of the First U.S. DOE Environmental Control Symposium, CONF-781109, 1978 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-6855). E. Ossio, J. P. Fox, J. F. Thomas, and R. E. Poulson, "Anaerobic Fermentation of Simulated In- Situ Oil Shale Retort Water," Division of Fuel Chemistry Preprints, v. 23, no. 2, p. 202-213, 1978 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-6855). J. P. Fox, J. J. Duvall, R. D. McLaughlin, and R. E. Poulson, "Mercury Emissions from a Simulated In-Situ Oil Shale Retort," Proceedings of the Eleventh Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1978 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-7823). J. P. Fox, R. D. McLaughlin, J. F. Thomas, and R. E. Poulson, "The Partitioning of As, Cd, Cu, Hg, Pb, and Zn during Simulated In-Situ Oil Shale Retorting," Proceedings of the Tenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1977. Bechtel, Inc., Treatment and Disposal of Toxic Wastes, Report Prepared for Santa Ana Watershed Planning Agency, 1975. Bay Valley Consultants, Water Quality Control Plan for Sacramento, Sacramento-San Joaquin and San Joaquin Basins, Parts I and II and Appendices A-E, 750 pp., 1974.

5. Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

5.06 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Phyllis Fox, October 19, 2007 Responses to Comments ABJC#2A-1 See Responses ABJC#2-1, 3 and 4 in this document, and Master Response 2.2, Subsection 2.2.3 in the Final EIR Volume 3.

ABJC#2A-2 The commenter correctly notes the current and proposed sulfur content of crude oil processed by the Refinery.

ABJC#2A-3 See Response ABJC#2-3 in this document.

ABJC#2A-4 The Proposed Project does not include any process and equipment changes that would facilitate the processing of heavy crude oils at the Refinery. See Response ABJC#2-4 in this document.

ABJC#2A-5 See Responses FOX-1, RWQCB-3, RWQCB-4 in the Final EIR Volume 3, and Response ABJC#2-4 in this document.

ABJC#2A-6 Other than sulfur content, impurities in the anticipated future crude oil slate will be similar to those in the current slate. As a result, there is no reason to assume that water quality and biological resources effects would change. See Master Response 2.2, subsection 2.2.3 (Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects) and Response FOX-2 in the Final EIR Volume 3 and Response ABJC#2-4 in this document.

ABJC#2A-7 See Response ABJC#2A-4, above.

ABJC#2A-8 See Response FOX-1 and Master Response 2.2, subsection 2.2.3 (Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects) in the Final EIR Volume 3.

ABJC#2A-9 There would be no increase in the amounts of crude oil or gas oil brought over the Long Wharf as a result of the Proposed Project. Furthermore, the importation and use of heavier crude oils is not anticipated because the Proposed Project does not include any process and equipment changes that would facilitate the processing of heavy crudes at the Refinery. The Refinery now typically refines a mixture of Alaskan North Slope and Arab crude oils. The crude oils used would continue to be a mix of the intermediate and light crudes that the Refinery is designed to process. See Master Response 2.2, Subsection 2.2.3 (Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects) in the Final EIR Volume 3 and Response ABJC#2- 4 in this document.

ABJC#2A-10 The concern for spills of heavier oils is related to the commenter’s assumption that heavy crudes will be used at the Refinery. See Subsection 2.2.3 (Crude Oil

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.06-1 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters March 2008 5. Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

Slate Changes and Related Effects) of Master Response 2.2 in the Final EIR Volume 3. See also Responses ABJC#2A-9 and ABJC#2-4 in this document.

ABJC#2A-11 The concern for spills of non-floating oils is related to the commenter’s assumption that heavy crudes will be used at the Refinery. See Master Response 2.2, Subsection 2.2.3 (Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects) in the Final EIR Volume 3 and Response ABJC#2-4 in this document.

ABJC#2A-12 See Response ABJC#2A-11, above.

ABJC#2A-13 As discussed in Master Response 2.2, Subsection 2.2.3 (Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects) in the Final EIR Volume 3, the impurities other than sulfur in the crude oils to be used in the future should be similar to those impurities in the present crude oil slate, so there is no basis to assume that the proposed project would cause “unique and significant biological and water quality impacts.” Please see also Responses ABJC#2-4 and ABJC#2A-6 in this document.

ABJC#2A-14 The Refinery does not now process heavy crudes and the Proposed Project does not include any process and equipment changes that would facilitate the processing of heavy crudes at the Refinery. Please see Responses ABJC#2-4, ABJC#2A-6, and ABJC#2A-13 in this document.

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.06-2 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters March 2008 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07 Comment Letter 5.07

5. Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

5.07 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Suma Peesapati, November 20, 2007 Responses to Comments ABJC#3-1 See Responses to Comment Letter 5.01 (DOJ#2) in this document.

ABJC#3-2 The commenter is correct that the Power Plant Replacement is a component of the Proposed Project analyzed in the Draft EIR.

ABJC#3-3 Comment noted.

ABJC#3-4 Comment noted. See also Responses DOJ#2-1, -6, and -7.

ABJC#3-5 See Response to Comment DOJ#2-1. The authorities cited by the commenter outline the lead agency’s obligation under CEQA to prepare an EIR that informs the public and decision makers of significant environmental effects of the Proposed Project. CEQA does not require the lead agency to respond to data requests submitted in related, but separate, permitting processes.

ABJC#3-6 See Master Response 2.2, Subsection 2.2.3 (Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects). The Proposed Project does not involve increased shipping to the Refinery.

ABJC#3-7 See Master Response 2.2, Subsection 2.2.3 (Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects) and Response ABJC#3-6, above.

ABJC#3-8 The analysis and conclusions in the City’s EIR do not rely on future analyses. Please see Response to Comment DOJ #2-1. The City requested that Chevron specifically respond to the potential inconsistencies in the project description identified in the commenter’s data requests, and has incorporated the relevant information from Chevron’s responses (Chevron 2008a, Chevron 2008b) into the FEIR and Responses to Comments.

ABJC#3-9 See Responses to Comment Letter 5.01 and Responses ABJC#3-5 and ABJC#3-8, above.

ABJC#3-10 See all responses to Comment Letter 5.01 (DOJ#2) and Responses ABJC#3-5 and ABJC#3-8 in this document.

ABJC#3-11 See all responses to Comment Letter 5.01 (DOJ#2) and Responses ABJC#3-5 and ABJC#3-8 in this document.

ABJC#3-12 See all responses to Comment Letter 5.01 (DOJ#2) and Responses ABJC#3-5 and ABJC#3-8 in this document.

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.07-1 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters March 2008

Comment Letter 5.08 Comment Letter 5.08 5. Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

5.08 Atchison Village Mutual Homes Association (AVMHA #2), Nick Jones & Ruth Gilmore, October 3, 2007 Responses to Comments AVMHA#2-1 Comment noted.

AVMHA#2-2 Please see Master Response 2.8 in the Final EIR, Volume 3, for responses to health-related concerns.

AVMHA#2-3 Comment noted.

AVMHA#2-4 See Master Responses 2.6 and 2.7 in the Final EIR, Volume 3.

AVMHA#2-5 The commenter has concerns about Chevron’s past performance, and existing conditions at the Refinery and in Richmond. The existing conditions at the Refinery and vicinity are discussed in the individual setting descriptions in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR. The existing conditions for the equipment and operations at the Refinery and the elements of the Proposed Project are described in the Draft EIR Chapter 3. This information is also updated in Volume 3 of the Final EIR. Existing conditions and compliance with various regulatory requirements, as well as the potential impacts of the Proposed Project, are discussed in each Draft EIR section.

The purpose of the Draft EIR is not to remedy past problems, but to analyze the physical change in the environment that would result from the Proposed Project. However, a primary objective of the Proposed Project is the replacement and modification of existing equipment with more modern and efficient facilities to provide improved reliability, energy efficiency, and additional environmental controls. See Section 3.2.1 Project Objectives, page 3-4 in the Draft EIR, and Master Response 2.2 in the Final EIR, Volume 3. These types of changes may address the commenter’s concerns about the Refinery’s performance to date.

The EIR also proposes numerous enforceable mitigation measures to reduce the Proposed Project’s impact on nearby communities, as shown in Table 2-1 (REVISED), which is contained in Final EIR ,Volume 3.

See also all responses to comment letter AVMHA, Section 3.14 of of the Final EIR, Volume 3.

AVMHA#2-6 See Master Responses 2.5 and 2.7 in the Final EIR, Volume 3 for information on air quality and flaring. Public health is also discussed further in Master Response 2.9. In a separate action on July 16, 2007, the BAAQMD approved a Flare Minimization Plan (FMP) for the Refinery. The FMP is intended to reduce

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.08-1 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters March 2008 5. Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

flaring at the Richmond Refinery. The FMP and its effects on the Refinery, as well as the effects of the Proposed Project on flaring, are discussed at length in Master Response 2.7.

AVMHA#2-7 See Master Response 2.7.

AVMHA#2-8 See Master Response 2.5.

AVMHA#2-9 See Response FOX-1.

AVMHA#2-10 See Master Response 2.5.

AVMHA#2-11 See Response AVMHA#2-5, above.

AVMHA#2-12 See Response AVMHA#2-5, above.

AVMHA#2-13 See Responses AVMHA#2-5 through AVMHA#2-9, above.

AVMHA#2-14 This is not a comment on the analysis in the EIR, but will be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration.The purpose of the Draft EIR is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project.

AVMHA#2-15 This is not a comment on the analysis in the EIR, but will be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. The purpose of the Draft EIR is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. See also Response AVMHA#2-5.

AVMHA#2-16 This is not a comment on the analysis in the EIR, but will be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. The purpose of the Draft EIR is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. See also Response AVMHA#2-5, above, and Section 6 of the Draft EIR, Master Response 2.3, and Response CBD-24, in the Final EIR, Volume 3.

AVMHA#2-17 See Master Response 2.2, Subsection 2.2.3, Crude Oil Slate Changes and Related Effects.

AVMHA#2-18 This is not a comment on the analysis in the EIR, but will be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. The purpose of the Draft EIR is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project.

AVMHA#2-19 This is not a comment on the analysis in the EIR, but will be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. The purpose of the Draft EIR is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project.

AVMHA#2-20 The commenter makes reference 116 deficiencies in the Draft EIR without reference to what these deficiencies are.

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.08-2 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters March 2008 5. Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

AVMHA#2-21 See Master Response 2.4 in the Final EIR, Volume 3

AVMHA#2-22 The commenter states their concerns about explosions. However, the commenter assumes that crude oil is highly pressurized, which is not generally the case. Furthermore, as is explained in Master Response 2.2, in the Final EIR, subsection 2.2.2, the 22-mile hydrogen pipeline is not part of this Proposed Project.

AVMHA#2-23 Comment noted.

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.08-3 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters March 2008

Comment Letter 5.09

November 15, 2007

Lamont Thompson, Senior Planner City of Richmond Planning and Building Regulations Department 1401 Marina Way South Richmond, CA 94804

Re: Supplemental Comments of Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) on May 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2005072117, City of Richmond Project No. 1101974 (DEIR)

Dear Mr. Thompson: CBE respectfully submits these supplemental comments on the above-cited DEIR. Following release of the DEIR in May 2007, Chevron applied in June 2007 to the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (CEC) for CEC approval of the power plant expansion portion of the same project. In accordance with CEC procedures, CBE submitted data requests regarding the project on October 16, 2007. See Attachment A. However, on October 25, 2007, and without responding to our data requests, Chevron sought to stay or suspend the CEC review process. See Attachment B. On November 15, 2007 the CEC granted a stay suspending its review process. See Attachment C.

CBE’s previous comments to the City of Richmond identified numerous serious deficiencies in the DEIR. Among other deficiencies, our previous comments show that: - The DEIR does not adequately disclose a proposed expansion of conversion, conditioning, sulfur, hydrogen and energy production in order to make the same total amount of vehicle fuels from lower quality, more contaminated crude and gas oils. - The DEIR does not disclose potential increases in multiple pollutant releases to air and water, and in catastrophic incident risk, that could result from this expanded capacity to refine lower quality crude and gas oils and could be significant and irreversible. - Despite this potential for significant irreversible impacts, and the identification in the June 2007 DEIR hearing of apparently feasible alternatives that may lessen or avoid them, data and information needed for adequate assessment of potential impacts, mitigation and alternatives were omitted from the DEIR.

Chevron’s application to the CEC does not provide the information necessary for adequate review of its proposed project, and further compounds the deficiencies in the DEIR by providing information to the CEC that conflicts with the information provided in the DEIR. CBE identified numerous examples of undisclosed and conflicting project information in our attached data requests.

1440 Broadway, Suite 701 ¥ Oakland, CA 94612 ¥ T (510) 302-0430 ¥ F (510) 302-0437 In Southern California: 5610 Pacific Blvd., Suite 203 ¥ Huntington Park, CA 90255 ¥ (323) 826-9771 Comment Letter 5.09 Lamont Thompson November 15, 2007 Page two

Our original conclusion that the DEIR is deficient and must be re-circulated (see e.g., Attachment D) is further supported by the evidence in Attachment A, and is supported still further by other analyses. Comments identifying deficiencies in the DEIR have been submitted by CBE, labor unions representing refinery workers, and the State Attorney General. We believe that these three independent analyses identified the same deficiencies where the same issues were analyzed. Further, the unions identified additional issues that we believe most members of the public had no opportunity to review because otherwise available data were omitted from the DEIR. The unions also submitted outstanding requests for missing project data in the CEC process. Indeed, electonic mail documents provided to CBE by the City show that, after the DEIR was released for review, the City itself requested at least some of the missing information identified in the data requests.

All data and information necessary for adequate review of the project should have been provided in the DEIR when it was first circulated for public review. Instead, this information is undisclosed and, as a result of Chevron’s move to suspend its own power plant application without responding to outstanding data requests, will apparently remain undisclosed in the CEC process for at least several months.

Accordingly, CBE renews and supplements our request for full disclosure and analysis of this information in a new DEIR that will be re-circulated for full public review. Our attached data requests supplement the identification of such data and information in our previous comments on the DEIR. In addition to responding to each of the comments in our previous letter and attachments dated July 9 and 13, 2007 please respond to each request for information in the attached data requests.

Respectfully submitted

Greg Karras, Senior Scientist Communities for a Better Environment (CBE)

Copy: City Council Members Planning Commissioners City Manager Interested organizations and individuals

Attachments A. CBE Data Requests–Set One. October 16, 2007. CEC Docket No. 07-SPPE-1 B. Applicant’s Motion for Stay or Suspension. October 25, 2007. CEC Docket No. 07-SPPE-1 C. Order Granting Stay, CEC Docket No. 07-SPPE-1 D. Declaration originally submitted by CBE on July 13, 2007. Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission

In the Matter of: ) ) The Application for Certification ) DOCKET NO. 07-SPPE-1 of the CHEVRON RICHMOND ) POWER PLANT REPLACEMENT ) PROJECT ) ______)

COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT (CBE)

DATA REQUESTS – SET ONE

October 16, 2007

Adrienne Bloch, Staff Attorney Greg Karras, Senior Scientist Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) 1440 Broadway, Suite 701 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 302-0430 Facsimile: (510) 302-0438 [email protected] [email protected]

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

The following requests are submitted by Communities for a Better Environment (CBE). Please provide your responses within 30 days to the following people:

Greg Karras Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) 1440 Broadway, Suite 701 Oakland, CA 94612 [email protected]

Adrienne Bloch Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) 1440 Broadway, Suite 701 Oakland, CA 94612 [email protected]

Please identify the person who prepared your response to each data request. If you have a question about the meaning of any data request, please let us know.

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 2 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fuel Use

Background

The mercury content of refinery fuel gas for this project may affect emissions and may vary with refinery-specific changes in feedstock and processing. The Richmond Refinery has been required to conduct sampling for a mass balance of mercury inputs, process gases and product outputs to support an adequate emission estimate, and may have other prior data. At the September 26, 2007 Workshop Chevron said it has data on mercury in fuel gas. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Renewal Project (RP) indicates that the crude and gas oil feedstock is expected to change. The Application and DEIR, however, do not provide current or future mercury content data.

Data Request 1. Please provide the date, time, material sampled, sample location including process output/input, sampling method, analysis method, method detection limit, mercury results with measurement units, and all other relevant results for any and all samples of the following Richmond Refinery materials analyzed for mercury: (1-a) Treated fuel gas, untreated “sour” gas, and Pressure Swing Absorber off-gas. (1-b) Petroleum-derived coke, including coke burned in the FCC regenerator. (1-c) Other intermediate and product streams consumed onsite and/or offsite. (1-d) Wastes including waste water treatment sludge. (1-e) Crude and gas oil feedstock inputs including, but not limited to, individual crude oils, and the combined crude/gas oil slate for the existing Refinery. (1-f) Anticipated future Refinery crude oil and gas oil feedstock. For each such potential future feedstock, if data are unavailable, please provide an estimate together with supporting detail.

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fuel Use

Background

The RP and its Power Plant Replacement Project (PPRP) component include Refinery process unit additions, expansions and shutdowns. The Application suggests Refinery- wide consumption of natural gas would remain at current levels or be slightly reduced. (See e.g., page 2-2.) However, the DEIR suggests that natural gas consumption would increase by about one-third, to support increased power and hydrogen production. (See e.g., DEIR at 4.6-10.) In addition, the PPRP would be fired in part with medium-Btu gas but the Application and DEIR do not appear to quantify medium-Btu gas usage. Additional information is needed to fully evaluate effects on Refinery fuel usage.

Data Request 2. Please indicate the existing and projected natural gas usage, and medium-Btu gas usage, by the Refinery, and by each process unit where natural gas and/or medium-Btu gas usage may change after RP implementation. Please provide

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 3 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

these data in standard cubic feet (SCF)/hour and include the new hydrogen plant and the other Refinery projects listed in DEIR sections 3 and 5.2.3.1 in these projections.

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fuel Use

Background

The Application states that natural gas and medium-Btu gas will be delivered via existing pipelines, describes them as “existing natural gas, medium-Btu gas pipelines currently serving the Refinery” and states that “the PPRP will have two independent sources of natural gas.” (See pages 2-2, 2-31.) However, the DEIR indicates that one of the Refinery’s existing natural gas pipelines would be replaced as part of a proposed new hydrogen pipeline project, and does not appear to discuss medium-Btu gas pipelines. Additional information is needed to fully understand how natural gas and medium-Btu gas would be delivered to the Refinery and project, and potential impacts therefrom.

Data Request 3. Please provide the following information for each natural gas and/or medium-Btu gas pipeline to the Refinery: (3-a) An identification of each existing and proposed pipeline and, for each existing pipeline, whether it would be replaced if currently proposed projects proceed. (3-b) The amounts, in SCF/hour, of natural gas, and of medium-Btu gas, that each pipeline delivers and would deliver to the Refinery. (3-c) For each pipeline that delivers and/or would deliver both natural gas and medium- Btu gas, if any, where and how the mixture of those gases is, and will be, determined and achieved. (3-d) A quantitative description and discussion of the extent to which the existing and proposed pipeline systems provide and would provide a redundant backup supply of natural gas, and of medium-Btu gas. (3-e) Any and all medium-Btu gas mercury analysis results in Chevron’s possession, to the extent that these are not provided in the response to Data Request 1.

4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fuel Use

Background

The Application states that the PPRP would use liquid petroleum gas (LPG). Refinery storage capacity for LPG was recently expanded, but cumulative impacts of the LPG Spheres Project were not analyzed adequately when that project was approved.

Data Request 4. What amount (SCF/hr) and percentage of the LPG used by this project (PPRP) would be produced by the Refinery, and what is the relationship of this PPRP fuel supply to the LPG Spheres Project?

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 4 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fuel Use

Background

The PPRP would change Refinery consumption of fuel gas and provide power and steam for the RP, which also would change Refinery production and usage of fuel gas. The balance between production and use of fuel gas can affect the frequency and magnitude of flare emissions. Fuel gas imbalance is a refinery-wide condition, and may be affected by imported gas usage, hydrogen, nitrogen and/or PSA off-gas production and use, among other factors. The Application and DEIR do not provide the data necessary to fully evaluate potential effects of the project on the Refinery fuel gas balance. Further, the response to CEC Data Request 3 does not provide adequate chemical composition data because it fails to report data for refinery fuel gas and PSA off-gas, or to report results from available analyses of some compounds found to be present in other gases.

Data Request 5. Please provide the following data and information: (5-a) The name, process type, and BAAQMD Source number if applicable, of each existing, planned and proposed Refinery process unit that produces and/or consumes fuel gas, or would produce and/or consume fuel gas. (5-b) The current flow in SCF/hour, chemical composition and heating value (Btu/SCF) of gases produced, and of gases consumed; for each unit identified in 5-a during typical operation, maximum design capacity operation, shutdown, and startup. Please include with the composition data the analysis method, detection limits and results for the most sensitive method used to date for each constituent. (5-c) The projected post-RP flow, composition and heating value of gases produced and consumed by each unit identified in 5-a during each condition in 5-b. (5-d) Box diagrams showing each process unit, the gas flows between them and to and from the fuel gas system, and the Refinery fuel gas balance, for (i) the existing Refinery and (ii) the Refinery after the RP is in operation. (5-e) An identification and description of any limitation in fuel gas consumption that may result in flaring, including the unit(s) involved in any such limitations.

6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fuel Use

Background

The composition of LPG fuel may affect emissions. The Application suggests that the LPG used by the PPRP would contain butane and propane. (Pages 2-2, 2-4.) However, the response to CEC Data Request 3 suggests that this LPG contains butane and pentane. Also, the Response to CEC Data Request 3 does not provide analysis methods, method detection limits, or quantitative results, for all relevant constituents of LPG.

Data Request 6. Please provide the current and projected chemical composition of each LPG stream that could supply the PPRP, to the extent that this information is not

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 5 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09 provided in response to data requests 1 and 5. Please include analysis methods, detection limits and results for the most sensitive methods used to date for each constituent.

7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fuel Use, Design and Operation

Background

The Application indicates that the Refinery will be able to shift the steam/power production balance between the proposed CTG-HRSG train and hydrogen plant STG to produce Refinery power and steam from a changing balance of these units. (Page 1-3.) A mix of fuels including LPG, refinery fuel gas and others would fuel the CTG-HRSG (page 2-12), but Figure 2.1-14 suggests that natural gas burning would create the steam to drive the hydrogen plant STG. The timing and extent of shifts in power and steam production balance between the proposed units are not adequately explained to fully evaluate the potential changes in fuel usage and resulting emissions.

Data Request 7. Please describe and quantify the design capacity that would allow the shift in balance of power and steam production between the CTG-HRSG and hydrogen plant STG, and project the percentage of operating time, and amounts (SCF/hr) of each fuel to be used, in each mode of this shifting balance.

8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design and Operation

Background

The Application indicates that PPRP steam will be used in the Refinery, and that additional steam production will be needed during some conditions. (Page 2-4.) However, it does not identify the variability in steam demand, the conditions in which more steam will be needed, or which Refinery process needs create these conditions.

Data Request 8. Please identify the conditions that may require additional steam, identify the Refinery process units that may be involved in each such condition, and project the frequency and duration of each such condition.

9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design and Operation

Background

Chevron asserts that the PPRP will support increased Refinery electrical loads resulting from the RP and will also change the Refinery from a net importer to a net exporter of electric power. However, inconsistencies and omissions in the Application, DEIR and response to CEC Data Request 67 make it difficult or impossible to fully evaluate the projected changes in Refinery generation, load and energy import/export. The DEIR estimates current Refinery self-generation at approximately 125 megawatts (MW) while

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 6 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

Response 67 estimates 2007 net generation at approximately 120 MW. Response 67 further suggests that the Refinery now imports approximately 19 MW (and would export a projected 9 MW in 2010 with the 60 MW PPRP), but the DEIR estimates current imports at approximately 10 MW. In addition, total Refinery energy use and short-term variability in loads may cause impacts, and are affected by process-specific factors, but energy, and process-specific loads, are not provided.

Data Request 9. Please provide the following data and information, including estimates and projections in megawatts (MW) and megawatt-hours/year (MWh/y): (9-a) Please confirm or update the current Refinery-wide average net generation, load and imports of approximately 120 MW, 139 MW and 19 MW respectively; and provide current total electric energy (MWh/y) generation, demand and imports. (9-b) Please confirm or update the projected 2010 Refinery-wide net generation, load and exports of approximately 180 MW, 171 MW and 9 MW respectively; and provide current total electric energy (MWh/y) generation, demand and exports. (9-c) For each existing and proposed Refinery process unit including hydrogen plants, please identify the unit and provide its existing, and projected post-PPRP/RP (2010), net generation, and load/demand, in MW at maximum design capacity and MWh/y at projected actual operating rates. (If unit has no generation, state “0”.)

10. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design and Operation

Background

The Application suggests that the No. 1 Power Plant boilers, which the PPRP would replace, generate no electricity, but the DEIR suggests that the 1 Power Plant boilers supply approximately 10 MW to the Refinery. (See App. at 9-3; DEIR at 4.6-11.)

Data Request 10. To the extent this information is not included in the response to Data Request 9, please identify each currently operating equipment component that the PPRP would replace and its current and post-PPRP/RP generation.

11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design and Operation

Background

The Application states that the PPRP design includes provision for additional future loads but it is not clear if these result from the RP or from some other plan or plans. (Page 6- 15.)

Data Request 11. Please identify each planned project not included in the RP that may increase future Refinery electrical loads, if any, the range of potentially increased load due to the project, and each process unit involved in that potential load increase.

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 7 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

12. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design and Operation

Background

The Application estimates the distance from PPRP facilities and emission points to the Refinery fenceline, and to the nearest “sensitive receptor” offsite, but it appears possible that non-Chevron personnel may live or work nearer than these distances.

Data Request 12. Please estimate the distance from PPRP facilities and emission points to the nearest non-Chevron personnel, assuming post-PPRP and RP operations.

13. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design and Operation

Background

As proposed in the Application and DEIR the PPRP and RP would include new cooling towers. At the September 26, 2007 Workshop, however, Chevron stated that the PPRP no longer includes a cooling tower. This apparent change could potentially change PPRP heat balance, operation, and other factors.

Data Request 13. Please provide the following information regarding cooling towers: (13-a) Which, if any, cooling tower or towers originally proposed in the Application and/or DEIR is no longer planned or no longer planned as proposed? (13-b) If a cooling tower or towers proposed in the Application is no longer planned or no longer planned as proposed, does Chevron plan to submit an Amended Application for this change in the project?

14. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design and Operation

Background

The PPRP would be integrated into the RP and the Refinery and would provide steam and electricity to support interrelated changes in hydrogen, conversion, and conditioning processing of different crude and gas oil feedstock. (See e.g., App. at 1-1, 1-2, 1-4, 1-7, 4-1, 6-15, 7-1; and DEIR.) These feedstock and process changes would have potential impacts and would, in turn, affect PPRP steam and power loads, operation and emissions among other factors. In addition, the Application asserts that design of the PPRP’s integration into the post-RP Refinery is too incomplete to fully define PPRP load and operational variability. (Page 2-26; see also 2-28, 2-31.) More information about the design criteria for these interrelated changes in processing and feedstock is needed to fully assess project impacts.

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 8 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

Data Request 14. Please provide the following data: (14-a) The current and post-RP maximum design capacity for Refinery crude and gas oil feedstock including gravity, viscosity, distillation curve, total acid number (TAN), sulfur content, nitrogen content and concentrations of trace elements. (14-b) The current maximum permitted throughput, and post-RP maximum design throughput, for each hydrocarbon-processing unit that could increase throughput after RP implementation. (14-c) Current typical and maximum steam usage, and post-RP maximum design steam usage, for each process unit that uses and/or would use steam during normal operating conditions. (14-d) The Refinery hydrogen balance including hydrogen use and production by each process that uses and/or produces hydrogen and any import to and/or export from the Refinery, at current maximum permitted capacity, and post-RP maximum design capacity. (14-e) The current and post-RP average and maximum electric power demand for the Refinery and for each process unit that uses and/or would use power, to the extent that these data are not provided in the response to Data Request 9.

15. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Scope and Potential Impacts

Background

The PPRP would be integrated into the RP and Refinery and support changes in the production, transport and processing of a different crude and gas oil feedstock. These changes would be interrelated and would take place at the Refinery and/or offsite. The Application and DEIR do not provide adequate information to fully identify or assess the scope and potential impacts of these changes in production, transport and processing.

Data Request 15. Please identify and describe each planned, proposed, initiated and/or recently completed project that Chevron is aware of which would have the potential to: (15-a) Change the type and/or amount of Refinery feedstock produced by any oil field. (15-b) Change the type and/or amount of Refinery feedstock that could be received by pipeline, rail, truck and/or by water. (15-c) Change the type and/or amount of gas oil and/or hydrogen available to the Refinery due to changes in offsite manufacturing and/or material transport (pipeline, rail, truck and/or water transport) facilities.

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 9 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

16. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Scope and Potential Impacts

Background

The PPRP could result in onsite and/or offsite impacts related to changes in the production, processing and transport of gas oil feedstock. ConocoPhillips’ Rodeo refinery plans to expand conversion of gas oil it now ships for offsite use. The RP is designed in part to address reduced local supplies of such gas oil (DEIR at 6-3, 6-4 and 6- 11), but the Application mentions the Rodeo refinery project without identifying this gas oil supply effect.

Data Request 16. Please indicate the annual amounts, if any, of gas oil that the Chevron Refinery has received from the Rodeo refinery since January 1, 2000, to the extent that these data are not provided in the response to Data Request 15.

17. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Scope and Potential Impacts

Background

The PPRP could result in onsite and/or offsite impacts related to hydrogen production, processing and transport. Praxair and Air Liquide propose hydrogen pipelines that could link the Chevron Refinery to at least three other refineries, two of which plan to expand hydrogen production. The Application and DEIR identify only one of these pipeline projects and only one of these offsite hydrogen production expansions.

Data Request 17. Please provide the following data and information, to the extent it is not provided in the responses to data requests 14 and 15: (17-b) What is the projected increase in maximum hydrogen production capacity (SCF/hr) at each other refinery that would be connected to the Refinery directly or indirectly by the proposed Praxair and Air Liquide pipelines? (17-c) Assuming that all currently planned/proposed regional refining infrastructure is operational, what is the projected direction and amount (SCF/hr) of hydrogen flow between the refineries that would be connected to a hydrogen pipeline? (17-d) Assuming that all currently planned/proposed regional infrastructure is built, please identify and describe each circumstance, if any, in which the Refinery may import hydrogen, and estimate the import (SCF/hr) in each such circumstance.

18. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Scope and Potential Impacts

Background

The PPRP would be integrated into the RP and Refinery and support refining different crude and gas oil feedstock. Central Valley crude oil is delivered to Bay Area refineries by pipeline. The Cymric field in the Central Valley produces oil that has very high

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 10 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

gravity and viscosity, and extraordinarily high mercury content. Chevron produces Cymric oil. More information is needed to fully evaluate the potential that the PPRP may support refining of this extremely heavy, viscous, contaminated crude oil.

Data Request 18. Please identify the amounts, if any, of Cymric crude oil that the Refinery has received and/or is projected to receive in barrels/year, to the extent that this information is not provided in the response to Data Request 15, including: (18-a) The maximum amount received in any past year, and the year it was received. (18-b) The average amount received by the Refinery from January 1, 2000 to date. (18-c) The amount projected to be received in the future after the RP is implemented.

19. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Scope and Potential Impacts

Background

The PPRP would have an expected operating life of 30 years. The Application asserts that helping to ensure the ability to process future crude and gas oil supplies is a key benefit of the project, but does not explain the nature or extent of the asserted benefit. Elsewhere, Chevron suggests increasing future competition for conventional crude oil (DEIR at 6-11) and reports a business strategy that includes developing and refining “unconventional” hydrocarbons (2006 Annual Report to Shareholders).

Data Request 19. Please provide the following information regarding the asserted benefit of ensuring the ability to process future crude and gas oil supplies at the Refinery: (19-a) Identify and describe each plan, if any, to process extra-heavy crude oil, oil sands, and/or oil shale, whether or not the material might be pre-processed elsewhere, as a portion of the future Refinery slate. (19-b) Identify and describe the asserted benefit from processing the future feedstock, relative to the benefit from processing the current Refinery design feedstock, and relative to the benefit from switching to non-fossil energy over 30 years. (19-c) Identify and describe the distribution of the asserted benefit among various groups, including, but not limited to, the people of California, residents living in communities adjacent to the Refinery, and Chevron.

20. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION

Background

Power failures have caused recurrent flaring and other significant pollution incidents at the Refinery and other refineries in recent years. For example, in July 2002 and February 2004, power failures caused an estimated 50-500 tons and 40 tons of pollutant emissions from flares at refineries in Rodeo and Avon, respectively. Root cause analysis of Bay

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 11 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

Area refinery incidents has been required in recent years and can provide important information for projecting, and avoiding, electrical failure incident risks from new projects, but the Application does not provide such analysis.

Data Request 20. Please provide the following data and information: (20-a) Each root cause or causal analysis report, submitted by any refinery, pursuant to the Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance and/or BAAQMD flare rules 12-11 and/or 12-12, where electrical problems were a cause or contributing factor. (20-b) An evaluation that identifies for each incident reported in 20-a, its date; the sources, types and amounts of pollutants it released; the electrical problem(s) that were its causal factors, and any potential that similar factors might cause an incident if the PPRP/RP is built.

21. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION: Interconnection

Background

Failure to provide reliable backup power for primary power system outages has caused major pollution incidents due to refinery process upsets and/or unplanned shutdowns, which have dumped massive amounts of pollution into the environments near the refineries where these incidents occurred.

Data Request 21. Please provide the following data and information: (21-a) Each agreement or contract between the Refinery and PG&E, ISO, FERC and/or another entity or entities, that includes any provision(s) for backup power to be supplied from the electrical grid in the event of a Refinery power outage. (21-b) Each report and/or analysis, if any, on the capacity and/or reliability of the grid to supply backup power to the Refinery in the event of a Refinery power outage.

22. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION: Interconnection

Background

PPRP interconnection to the distribution system may affect Refinery efficiency, operation and reliability, and the frequency and magnitude of pollution incidents resulting from electrical problems. The response to CEC Data Request 68 suggests that “[t]here will be no physical change required to downstream interconnection facilities” but the response to CEC Data Request 67 suggests that two new substations, Sub 6 and Sub 7, would be added. Further, the No. 6 Substation project would apparently replace existing Sub 1 (DEIR at 5-10) and change the circuits between Sub 4, the FCC Substation/Powerhouse, and the new hydrogen plant (App., Fig. 2.1-10, “clouded” notes). Eleven other Refinery electrical infrastructure replacement projects are identified. (DEIR at 5-10, 5-11.) The Application and responses to CEC data requests 66-69 do not appear to further discuss

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 12 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

subs 6 or 7 or these other projects, do not appear to show them in schematics or drawings, and do not provide adequate data to evaluate potential distribution system changes.

Data Request 22. For each project identified on pages 5-10 or 5-11 of the DEIR and for Substation 7, please confirm whether or not the project is fully analyzed in the Application. If not, please describe the project and its integration and interconnection with the PPRP in at least the same detail as that given for the electrical projects which are detailed in the Application and response to CEC Data Request 66, including schematics, diagrams and line drawings.

23. ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION: Interconnection

Background

The Application states that load flow studies are expected to indicate adequate system performance “to facilitate the interconnection without significant impacts” (page 5-5), but the response to Staff’s request for such detailed analysis suggests those studies may not be conducted. (Response to CEC Data Request 69.) Chevron’s response suggests that the decision whether to conduct such analysis may be based on the criteria defining a “Qualifying Facility” rather than project-specific evidence of the need to assess potential environmental health and safety impacts related to electrical reliability. (Id.)

Data Request 23. For each of the assessment needs listed below, please indicate whether this need is included in the decision criteria for whether or not to perform load flow studies, how it will be weighted relative to other decision criteria if it is included, and who will make those decisions: (23-a) the need to assess the reliability of the Refinery interconnection together with its distribution system and any changes to this system; (23-b) the need to assess changes in Refinery loads; (23-c) the need to assess the local transmission system’s ability to supply reliable backup power through the Refinery distribution system in order to ensure that a pollution incident will not occur in the event of a Refinery power failure; (23-d) the need to assess the potential frequency and magnitude of impacts resulting from electrical problems at the Refinery; and (23-e) the need to assess potential alternatives which may include alternative power supplied onsite and/or via the grid.

24. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Air Quality

Background

The PPRP is a component of the RP. Chevron submitted revised air emission estimates for the RP, which it characterized as the “BAAQMD approved emission inventory” for

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 13 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

the RP, on September 25, 2007. (Responses to CEC Data requests 12 and 13.) This revised emission inventory, however, does not appear complete because significant data are omitted; apparently contradictory data are included, and correcting these deficiencies may result in further revisions to the emission estimates. In addition, the September 25 revisions provided are not transparent, and no complete or coherent rationale or explanation for the revisions is presented with the revised inventory.

Data Request 24. Please provide complete and current revised air emission estimates for the RP and each of its components, including all data, assumptions and calculations and other supporting information, and Chevron’s analysis of the rationale for each revision. For each source in the tables provided in the response to CEC Data requests 12 and 13, please identify whether the throughput assumed represents the maximum daily design throughput for that source, and if not, provide the maximum daily design throughput.

25. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Air Quality

Background

The Application relies in part on Chevron (2006), EERC (1998), and WRCC (2007) in its air quality analysis, but does not include these documents. Chevron declined Staff’s request to provide Chevron (2006), its air permit application for the RP, stating that this application has been revised repeatedly and is not in a format consistent with a single application. (Response to CEC Data Request 48.) In response to Staff’s request for EERC (1998), Chevron did not provide the complete document, stating only that it provided the relevant portions. (Response to CEC Data Request 51.) However, an independent review of the complete documents, upon which the Application’s air quality analysis relies, is essential to a full and independent evaluation of this project.

Data Request 25. CBE requests the following data and information: (25-a) Please provide a complete and current copy of Chevron (2006). (25-b) Please identify each revision and the date of the revision to Chevron (2006). (25-c) Please provide a complete copy of EERC (1998). (25-d) Please provide a complete copy of WRCC (2007).

26. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Air Quality

Background

The Application indicates that potential air emissions are projected based on continuous operation at maximum capacity (see e.g., pages 8.1-18, 8.1-20), but elsewhere in the Application it is stated that PPRP facilities would also be operated in other modes ranging from 60-100 percent of base load. Operation outside of optimal design capacity and/or ramping up and down may affect pollutant emissions. Quantitative information

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 14 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

about these operating conditions is needed to fully evaluate both actual pollutant emissions and potential measures to mitigate or avoid such emissions.

Data Request 26. For each projected operating condition other than operation at continuous maximum capacity, planned shutdown/startup and commissioning, please identify the projected emission rate for each pollutant that may be emitted.

27. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Air Quality

Background

Section 8.1 of the Application summarizes data from the 7th Street Richmond monitoring station and more distant monitors for the stated purpose of analyzing existing ambient air quality near the Refinery. However, ambient air quality data are collected nearer to the Refinery than the 7th Street station, by ground-level monitors (GLMs) operated by the Richmond Refinery that measure sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide continuously. Chevron may also collect other ambient air quality data at or near the Refinery.

Data Request 27. Please provide the following data and information: (27-a) All available hourly-average sulfur dioxide and/or hydrogen sulfide data collected by each GLM operated by the Refinery from January 1, 2000 through the present. As these are expected to be large data collections, please provide these data as computer-readable files in Excel spreadsheets. (27-b) For each GLM operated by the Refinery, please provide any and all available data for each period shorter than one hour that were collected when ambient pollutant concentrations were elevated relative to average levels. (27-c) Please identify and provide any other available data resulting from ambient air quality measurements at or near the Refinery that are in Chevron’s possession, to the extent that these data were not provided in the Application and/or responses to data requests 27-a and 27-b above. (27-d) For each type of local air quality measurement identified in 27-a through 27-c above that was not included in the Application’s analysis, please provide Chevron’s rationale for excluding those data from that analysis.

28. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Air Quality

Background

The Application’s net emission projections appear to assume that there is no potential for the PPRP to be implemented without certain other components of the RP. However, this apparent assumption is not evaluated explicitly, and the RP is still undergoing environmental review at this time and might be changed in the future.

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 15 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

Data Request 28. For each RP component other than the PPRP, please provide the rationale for assuming that the PPRP will only be implemented if that other component of the RP is implemented, including, but not limited to, any and all process design data demonstrating that this assumption is correct.

29. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Air Quality

Background

Footnote (a) in Table 8.1B-2 of the Application identifies supporting data for the air quality analysis that do not appear to be included in the Application.

Data Request 29. Please provide the primary data and a complete copy of the primary reference document identified by footnote (a) in Table 8.1B-2.

30. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Air Quality

Background

The Application assesses potential air quality impacts using a method that adds the modeled impact of PPRP emissions alone to estimates of current air quality conditions. (Pages 8.1-24 through 8.1-31.) This method excludes the potential impacts from the rest of the RP. However, the Application states that the PPRP is a component of the RP.

Data Request 30. Please provide the rationale for assessing potential impacts by comparison of existing conditions with emission impact estimates for PPRP components alone, rather than including projected impacts from all RP emissions in this comparison.

31. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Air Quality

Background

The Application proposes to mitigate air quality impacts resulting from the PPRP in part by taking credits and/or offsets for other emission reductions. (See e.g., page 8.1-36.) It does not appear to specify where all of the emission reductions occurred or would occur.

Data Request 31. For each PPRP pollutant emission that may be mitigated through a credit and/or offset scheme, please indicate the location of each source that may generate the credit/offset.

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 16 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

32. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Air Quality

Background

The PPRP would support refining and production of different crude oil. In addition to increased emissions from refining, the production of heavy and/or unconventional oil by methods such as enhanced oil recovery (EOR) can increase pollutant emissions. Chevron uses EOR in several of its California oil production operations.

Data Request 32. For each Chevron EOR operation that produces Refinery feedstock and/or may produce post-RP Refinery feedstock, please identify the oil field; EOR method; type and amount of fuel used for EOR; and estimated emissions/barrel produced for each criteria, TAC, and greenhouse gas pollutant.

33. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

Background

Petroleum refineries emit or otherwise release into the environment a large number of toxic and potentially toxic chemicals. Some of these chemicals are not identified or analyzed in the Application. Potentially toxic chemicals may, in many cases, be untested or inadequately tested for their potential to cause toxicity in environmental exposures.

Data Request 33. Please identify each toxic and/or potentially toxic chemical that may be released by the Refinery, and estimate current and post-RP releases of the chemical to air, water, and land, to the extent that these data are not included in the Application or the responses to other data requests herein.

34. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Hazardous Materials and Waste

Background

The Application describes a PPRP CTG compressor wash system (page 2-6), but does not appear to discuss or analyze the potential wastes from this system.

Data Request 34. Are wastes from the proposed CTG compressor wash system characterized in the Application? If so, please specify which potential wastes could or would come from the CTC compressor wash system. If not, please describe the projected composition, amount, storage, handling and disposition of any such waste.

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 17 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

35. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Hazardous Materials and Waste

Background

The PPRP would use water treated by the Reverse Osmosis (RO) Plant in the Refinery, but the Application does not appear to discuss or analyze the potential wastes from this RO Plant activity.

Data Request 35. Please describe the projected composition, amounts, storage, handling and disposition of any waste chemical produced by RO treatment of water for the PPRP, to the extent that this information is not included in the Application.

36. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Biological and Water Resources

Background

The Application indicates that process waste water and storm water discharges have been separated (page 8.12-11), but does not provide details of these separate collection systems and does not provide data on discharge rates after September 2004. Such data are collected daily for some discharge parameters, such as effluent flow volume.

Data Request 36. Please provide daily discharge flow data, and results of each pollutant sample analysis for the process water effluent, and separately for each storm water discharge point, from September 2004 to the present.

37. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Biological and Water Resources

Background

The Application suggests that most, but not all, of the Refinery storm water runoff is collected and managed in the existing storm water system regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). (Page 8.12-12.)

Data Request 37. Please identify the disposition, flow, and characteristics of any storm water runoff not collected and managed in the existing system regulated by RWQCB.

38. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Biological and Water Resources

Background

Section 2 of the Application appears to indicate that an average of 90 gallons per minute (gpm) would be discharged to the Refinery process water system by PPRP equipment, but a larger amount of exceeding 800 gpm may flow to other Refinery processes as

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 18 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

steam. The Application does not discuss potential discharges to Refinery process water or storm water systems resulting from this steam.

Data Request 38. Please indicate the average and maximum Refinery process water, and storm water, system flows that would result from Refinery use of steam from the PPRP, and estimate the resultant discharge of each pollutant.

39. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Biological and Water Resources

Background

It is not clear from review of the Application what quantity of recycled water from the Richmond Advanced Recycling Expansion (RARE) project would be used by the PPRP, should both of these projects be implemented.

Data Request 39. Please identify the projected average and maximum amounts of RARE recycled water that the PPRP would use, should both of these projects be implemented.

40. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Biological and Water Resources

Background

The Application asserts that compliance with the Refinery’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, and future compliance with total maximum daily load (TMDL) requirements established by the RWQCB, will ensure that discharges to San Francisco Bay will not result in significant impacts. (Pages 1-6, 8.2-17, 8.2-18.) Waste load allocations that achieve TMDLs are intended to establish effluent limits applied in NPDES permits. However, the Refinery currently discharges certain toxic pollutants in excess of “final effluent limits” which are effluent levels calculated to protect the Bay. The RWQCB found that Refinery discharges of these pollutants have “a reasonable potential” to cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards established to protect the Bay.

Data Request 40. Please indicate whether Chevron has developed a plan or plans to meet effluent discharge levels calculated to ensure protection of the Bay, and if so, provide a complete copy of each such plan.

41. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

Background

The Application indicates that Chevron used cost as a factor in its analysis of alternatives. (See Section 9.) It also states that diversification of Richmond’s economic base is an objective of the PPRP. (Page 1-4.) The PPRP is projected to result in new electric power

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 19 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

export from the Refinery. However, the Application does not appear to analyze the potential effects of additional fossil fuel power generation on the growth of opportunities to diversify the local economy through renewable energy alternatives.

Data Request 41. Did Chevron analyze the potential effects of the PPRP on the future growth of renewable energy alternatives locally? If so, please provide this analysis.

42. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

Background

It is not clear that the Application analyzed the possibility of using the heat energy that would be wasted in proposed cooling towers in the Refinery, and in the September 26, 2007 Workshop, Chevron suggested that this cooling design may have been revised.

Data Request 42. If cooling towers are planned for heat disposal at the post-RP Refinery, please identify and provide a complete copy of any analysis Chevron has conducted regarding the potential for conserving this heat energy by using it in the Refinery.

43. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

Background

The Application states that anhydrous ammonia would be used in the PPRP and that the Refinery produces anhydrous ammonia. Aqueous ammonia and/or ammonia pellets may be alternatives to the proposed use of anhydrous ammonia. At the September 26, 2007 Workshop, Staff stated that it plans to consider analysis of alternatives to anhydrous ammonia after completing its own analysis of health risk, and requested additional information from Chevron for this risk analysis. CBE wishes to gain more information about the engineering options for such alternatives through the Data Request process, which may require seeking this information before Staff’s risk analysis is complete.

Data Request 43. Please provide an engineering evaluation of options for replacing PPRP use of anhydrous ammonia with aqueous ammonia, and with ammonia pellets, including, but not limited to, options using Refinery-produced ammonia in these forms.

44. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

Background

The PPRP as proposed would use polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic for rainwater management. (See e.g., Table 6.3-2.) Use of PVC contributes to environmental releases of highly toxic trace pollutants such as dioxins during PVC manufacturing and,

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 20 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

potentially, during structural fires and/or disposal. Other polymers and/or other materials may be feasible and less toxic alternatives to PVC.

Data Request 44. Did Chevron analyze alternatives to PVC use in the project? If so, please provide this analysis.

45. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

Background

The Application rejects solar and wind generation alternatives based on analysis that appears to consider the PPRP in isolation from the RP and does not appear to consider combinations of alternative technologies. However, the PPRP is a component of the RP that would be integrated into the RP and the Refinery, and combinations of increased solar and/or wind generation together with use of higher quality fossil feedstock appear to be technically feasible alternatives to the RP.

Data Request 45. Did Chevron analyze any alternative to the PPRP and RP that would utilize a combination of increased solar and/or wind power generation together with higher quality fossil feedstock than currently proposed by the RP? If so, please provide a complete copy of the analysis for each such alternative analyzed.

46. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

Background

Chevron indicates that the proposed PPRP design has been sized to match the proposed post-RP Refinery design, however, a smaller power/steam plant might be integrated into an alternative to the proposed RP. Less electric/thermal energy would be needed by the smaller conversion, conditioning, hydrogen production and sulfur handling units that could make the same amounts of CARB vehicle fuels from higher quality oil feedstock. Crude quality varies, as shown by the examples from USDOE data in the table below.

WTI Lea Field Alaska N. Slope Kern River Density (ºAPI) 40.9 27.6 12.6 Viscosity (CST @ 100º) 4.3 15.2 1,300.0 Sulfur (wt. %) 0.3 0.7 1.2 Atm. Distillation Yield (vol. %) LPG and Loss 0.3 0.7 1.4 Gasoline and Naphtha 32.6 20.4 0.0 Jet Fuel and Diesel 32.2 23.7 9.6 Lubes and Gas Oil 12.3 21.4 23.3 Asphalt and Residuum 22.6 33.8 65.7

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 21 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

Data Request 46. Assuming equipment shutdowns as proposed, please identify the PPRP design capacity (net MW, lb/hr steam) that would match Refinery needs if the RP is modified to make the same targeted product slate using process units that are re-sized and reconfigured for crude/gas oil feedstock with the following characteristics: (46-a) Characteristics equivalent to those of WTI Lea Field crude oil (see table). (46-b) Characteristics equivalent to those of Alaska North Slope crude oil (see table). (46-c) Characteristics equivalent to those of crude from the Kern River field (see table).

47. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

Background

Staff identified a general need to assess security. The PPRP would support a change in Refinery feedstock. The potential for increased Refinery use of oil from Iraq raises serious moral, policy, and security questions for the community. Analysis of feedstock alternatives may resolve these questions. Refinery use of Iraqi oil has been reported by the news media, so it would be counterproductive to complete this analysis in secret.

Data Request 47. Please identify the annual amounts of oil from Iraq that the Refinery (a) processed 1990-2003, (b) processed 2003-2007, (c) could process if the RP is implemented, and (d) plans to process if the RP is implemented.

Respectfully submitted ___October 16, ___ 2007

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY

Adrienne Bloch, Staff Attorney Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) 1440 Broadway, Suite 701 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 302-0430 x17 [email protected]

CBE Data Requests–Set One Page 22 Docket 07-SPPE-1 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

BEFORE THE ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

THE APPLICATION FOR A SMALL POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 07-SPPE-1 EXEMPTION FOR THE CHEVRON RICHMOND POWER PLANT REPLACEMENT PROJECT

COMMITTEE ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STAY OR SUSPENSION

Upon consideration of the Motion for Stay or Suspension filed by Applicant Chevron USA, the Committee designated to conduct proceedings in this matter makes the following findings:

1. On October 25, 2007, a Motion for Stay or Suspension in the above-captioned proceeding was filed on behalf of the Applicant, Chevron USA, by its counsel, pursuant to section 1716.5 of the Commission’s regulations (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 20, § 1716.5);

2. No opposition or other response to said Motion has been filed; and

3. Applicant has shown good cause for the granting of a stay or suspension of the proceedings.

THEREFORE, the Committee Orders that the Motion for Stay or Suspension in this matter be GRANTED.

The Committee further Orders that Applicant file a status report with the Committee every sixty (60) days henceforth, and provide no less than thirty (30) days notice when the Applicant seeks to lift the stay or suspension.

Dated November 15, 2007, at Sacramento, California.

/S/ /S/ JEFFREY D. BYRON ARTHUR H. ROSENFELD Commissioner and Presiding Member Commissioner and Associate Member Chevron Richmond SPPE Committee Chevron Richmond SPPE Committee

Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

CHEVRON ENERGY AND HYDROGEN RENEWAL PROJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH# 2005072117

Declaration of Gregory Karras

I, Gregory Karras, declare and say:

I reside in San Francisco and am employed as a Senior Scientist for Communities for a Better Environment (“CBE”). My duties for CBE include technical research, analysis and review of information regarding industrial investigation, pollution prevention engineering, pollutant releases into the environment, and potential effects of environmental pollutant accumulation and exposure.

My qualifications for this opinion include extensive experience, knowledge and expertise gained from two decades of industrial and environmental health investigation in the energy manufacturing sector, on toxic chemicals, and on this refinery in particular.

Among other assignments, I have served as an expert for CBE and other non profit groups in efforts to prevent selenium and other toxic pollution from Bay Area oil refineries; investigate alternatives to fossil fuel energy; improve dioxins monitoring, and prevent pollution from flares and other refinery sources. I have also served as an expert for CBE in collaboration with the City and County of San Francisco and local community groups in efforts to replace environmentally harmful electric power plant technology with reliable least-impact alternatives.

I authored a technical paper on the first publicly verified pollution prevention audit at the Richmond Refinery in 1989 and the first comprehensive analysis of refinery selenium discharge trends in 1994. I authored an alternative energy blueprint, published in 2001, that served as a basis for the “Electricity Resource Plan” adopted by San Francisco in 2002. From 1992 through 1994, I authored a series of technical analyses and reports that supported the successful achievement of cost-effective pollution prevention measures at 110 industrial facilities in Santa Clara County. I also authored the first comprehensive, peer-reviewed dioxin pollution prevention inventory for the San Francisco Bay, which was published by the American Chemical Society and Oxford University Press in 2001. In 2005 and 2007 I co-authored two technical reports that documented air quality impacts from flare emissions by the Richmond Refinery and other Bay Area refineries, and identified feasible measures to prevent these emissions. My curriculum vitae and list of publications are appended hereto as Attachment 1.

I have reviewed the May 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the proposed Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project (“Project”) at Chevron’s Richmond Refinery (“Refinery”). My opinion regarding the DEIR is focused on seven major points that are introduced and discussed in order below.

Declaration of G. Karras Page 1 of 20 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

1. The DEIR does not disclose the duration of proposed Project operation.

The DEIR does not state the projected operating life of the proposed new hydrogen plant, naphtha reformer, co-generation plant, or any of the new or modified equipment included in its project description in chapter 3. The DEIR states projected dates for construction of this equipment and a general time frame for decommissioning and demolition of some of the equipment that the Project would replace, but it does not disclose when any new or modified equipment is projected to be shut down, decommissioned or demolished.

Available evidence suggests that it is technically feasible for the Project to operate for 30-50 years. An excerpt from Application No. 12842, which seeks Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) permits for some Project equipment, is appended hereto as Attachment 2. Existing naphtha catalytic reformers will have operated for at least 30-40 years when the Project proposes to replace them with new naphtha catalytic reforming process equipment in 2009. (Attachment 2.) The existing methane/steam reformer hydrogen plant that would be replaced by the proposed new methane/steam reformer hydrogen plant has operated for 42 years. (Id.) The Refinery’s No. 1 Power Plant boilers that the proposed new co-generation plant would replace have operated for at least 58 years. (Id.) Information in chapter 3 of the DEIR is consistent with this operating history. This 30-50 year projection is also consistent the projections that I have reviewed for other projects to construct similar process equipment.

Technically feasible operating life, however, is not by itself adequate information about the Project’s actual operating life. Policy conditions have often limited the operation of projects due to environmental, social and economic factors. Providing information to support environmental policy decisions is a stated purpose of the DEIR.

The severity of environmental impacts resulting from Project operation is related to the duration of Project operation. Impacts of pollutant releases are more pronounced as more pollutants accumulate in the environment, chronic exposures occur, and acute exposures to episodic pollution recur over time. Secondary economic impacts from lost days at school or work due to pollution-related illness also manifest over longer periods. Projects that create commitments to use nonrenewable resources may commit future generations to similar uses of land and resources, and the extent of these impacts is also related to the duration of nonrenewable resource use. Impacts that fall within these categories may be significant over 30-50 years. This potential cannot properly be rejected without an evaluation that accounts for the operating life of the Project.

Therefore, in my opinion a reasonably precise and reliable projection of the operating life of the Project is needed for a complete review of potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project. Evaluation of the potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project cannot be completed adequately without information regarding the duration of Project operation that is not provided in the DEIR. Rigorous public verification of the DEIR’s environmental impact assessment cannot be completed until the duration of Project operation is projected.

Declaration of G. Karras Page 2 of 20 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

2. The DEIR omits components of the Project that are essential to achieving its objectives and must be considered to evaluate environmental impacts properly.

The DEIR does not identify and does not discuss the substantial expansion of heavy feedstock cracking that could result from the Project.

Process flows after proposed Project construction are summarized in Figure 3-7 on page 3-28 of the DEIR. Heavy gas oil and residuum fractions of the Refinery petroleum feedstock input (crude slate) would be processed in the fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) plant after some of these hydrocarbons are processed in the solvent deasphalting (SDA) and Taylor Kinetic Cracking (TKC) plants. (DEIR at Fig. 3-7.) The DEIR does not disclose the full nature of this heavy crude processing configuration, or the extent by which the Project would expand the capacity of this configuration.

An excerpt from the Environmental Impact Report for the Refinery’s previous Reformulated Gasoline and FCC Plant Upgrade Project, SCH # 92113007, is appended hereto as Attachment 3. Figure III-6 on page III.17 of Attachment 3 shows the same configuration of heavy gas oil and residuum flows through the SDA, TKC and FCC as shown in Figure 3-7 of the DEIR, except that the TKC is identified as a hydrocracking plant by the figure in Attachment 3. On page III.10 of Attachment 3, the TKC is among the Refinery’s processing plants that are distinguished from the fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) plant and explicitly identified as hydrocracking plants.

Flaring causal analysis reports submitted by the Refinery pursuant to BAAQMD Rule 12-12 for the month of February 2006 are appended hereto as Attachment 4. Attachment 4 identifies the TKC as a cracking plant, the “Taylor Catalytic Cracker (TKC process plant.” Attachment 4 further indicates that the TKC uses hydrogen in process reactions that remove sulfur and other contaminants from feed to the FCC plant.

An article that appeared in Hydrocarbon Processing and reviewed options for pretreatment to remove sulfur from the feedstock for FCC units is appended hereto as Attachment 5. Attachment 5 explains that hydrocracking may be needed to remove the sulfur imbedded in the complex hydrocarbons found in heavy gas oil feed to FCC units, and that some refineries use hydrocracking to pre-treat heavy gas oil feed to FCC units. In this regard, it should be noted that in addition to pretreatment in the TKC upstream of the FCC, the FCC Gasoline Hydrotreater identified on page 5-9 of the DEIR will process FCC gasoline products downstream from the FCC, according to BAAQMD Permit Application 10729. This separate unit, BAAQMD Source S4226, is in construction, based on the Refinery’s Flare Minimization Plan filed with BAAQMD under Rule 12-12.

The Refinery has apparently renamed the Taylor Kinetic Cracking (TKC) plant, BAAQMD Source S4253, as the “FCC Feed Hydrotreater” in its proposal for this Project. (Attachment 2.) However, the DEIR does not discuss any actual conversion of the TKC from a hydrocracking process to a process that solely performs hydrotreating. Further, I found no indication of a project for such modification of the TKC in the course of my recent investigation of flaring involving the TKC during 2001 through March 2007 or my reviews of BAAQMD permit applications by the Refinery.

Declaration of G. Karras Page 3 of 20 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

Based on the available evidence, the TKC is a hydrocracker that also removes sulfur from FCC feed. Unless there is a major unidentified and apparently unpermitted modification of the TKC from hydrocracking to hydrotreating service, the DEIR’s description of the TKC as a hydrotreater is a change in name only.

An excerpt from the Major Facility Permit issued to the Refinery under Title V of the federal Clean Air Act is appended hereto as Attachment 6. Attachment 6 shows that the maximum permitted production rate of the TKC, Source #S4253, is currently 65,000 barrels per day (BPD) as feedstock volume. In contrast, the Permit Application submitted to BAAQMD proposes a new maximum TKC production rate of 96,000 BPD. (Attachment 2.) Comparison of these existing and proposed throughput limits indicates a 31,000-BPD, or 48%, expansion of heavy gas oil processing in the TKC as a result of the Project. This substantial expansion of heavy crude cracking is omitted from the DEIR.

One result of the DEIR’s failure to discuss the extent of proposed TKC expansion is its failure to identify or discuss the expansion of FCC production that could result from the Project. The DEIR indicates that all TKC output products would be directed to FCC feed. (DEIR at Fig. 3-7.) The maximum FCC feed limit is currently 90,000 BPD. (Attachment 6.) The expanded maximum TKC feed rate of 96,000 BPD would exceed this downstream FCC feed rate. Further, TKC output will exceed its feed volume. Hydrocracking creates a 20-25% gain in product volume over feed volume. (See Leffler, 1985; Berger, 1992.) Accounting for this factor, the 96,000 BPD expanded TKC feed rate could result in 120,000 BPD output; and thus a 30,000 BPD, 33% increase in the 90,000 BPD current maximum FCC throughput.

The DEIR also fails to identify a potential expansion of gas oil processing in the proposed new continuous catalytic reformer (CCR) and existing TKN/ISO hydrocracker.

The DEIR asserts that replacing existing catalytic reformers with the proposed new CCR would not increase reforming throughput (DEIR at 3-34), but this conclusion conflicts with BAAQMD data and appears erroneous. Existing reformers 4 and 5, BAAQMD sources S4283 and S4237, are currently permitted for a maximum combined production rate of 71,300 BPD. (Attachment 6.) The Refinery’s Permit Application to BAAQMD proposes a maximum throughput limit of 90,000 BPD for the new CCR. (Attachment 2.) Based on this evidence that is omitted from the DEIR, the Project could increase naphtha reforming throughput by 18,700 BPD or 26%.

Increased CCR production would appear to require increased production by at least one of the processes that supply CCR feed. CCR feed would be supplied by the TKN/ISO plant and by straight-run naphtha from the crude distillation unit. (DEIR at Fig. 3-7.) However, the DEIR asserts that total crude throughput would not increase. Further, the heavier crude slate that is necessary to support the substantial increase in heavy gas oil feed to the TKC discussed above is likely to yield proportionately less naphtha from distillation, and is unlikely to result in a larger straight-run naphtha stream. Thus, the proposed increase in naphtha reforming would appear to require an increase in maximum TKN/ISO production as a result of the Project.

Declaration of G. Karras Page 4 of 20 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

The current TKN/ISO throughput limit is 60,900 BPD. (Attachment 6.) Assuming no change in straight-run naphtha input to the CCR, maximum TKN/ISO production could increase by 18,700 BPD, or 31%. The DEIR, however, fails to identify or discuss any potential increase in hydrocracking throughput at the TKN/ISO plant.

A report on Bay Area refinery crude substitution that was submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board by Purvin & Gertz on behalf of the Shell Oil Company in 1992 is appended hereto as Attachment 7. Attachment 7 shows that different crude oils have different densities and sulfur concentrations, and heavy crude generally has higher sulfur content than light crude. Thus, the 48% increase in Refinery processing of heavy gas oil discussed above appears consistent with the DEIR’s projection, on page 3-26, that the Project would allow the Refinery to process a crude slate with up to 50% higher sulfur content. The DEIR does not identify or discuss the Project’s switch to a crude slate that is heavier as well as higher in sulfur.

More hydrogen is needed to saturate hydrocarbons cracked in hydrocrackers, and remove sulfur and other contaminants from the feed in hydrocrackers and hydrotreaters, when refiners switch to heavier, higher-sulfur feedstock. The DEIR asserts that the Project would produce more hydrogen than is needed for these purposes in the Refinery, and would export hydrogen, via a new proposed pipeline to the ConocoPhillips Rodeo and Shell Martinez refineries. However, the DEIR admits that it has not analyzed or predicted the optimum size of the proposed hydrogen plant or its effects on the capacities of other Project components. (DEIR at 6-8.) The DEIR does not compare or quantify the hydrogen needs of Refinery processes. Process-specific hydrogen usage and production data are omitted from the DEIR. The DEIR thus provides no basis for concluding that the Refinery would consistently produce surplus hydrogen for export.

Hydrogen requirements depend on the type of refining process, its feedstock and product, its production rate; and, for some types of processes, the intensity of process reactions, and catalyst condition. Hydrocrackers and hydrotreaters are major hydrogen users. For each of the Refinery’s six hydrotreaters and four hydrocrackers, some data on its feedstock and product, maximum feed throughput, and processing intensity (as measured by maximum firing rate) are available in attachments 2 and 6. In lieu of the unit-specific hydrogen usage data that are omitted from the DEIR, these data can be used with process-specific, industry-wide factors to estimate Refinery hydrogen demand.

Attachment 5 reports hydrogen usage exceeds 300 standard cubic feet per barrel (SCF/B) of heavy gas oil feedstock processed for hydrotreating and exceeds 1,300 SCF/B for hydrocracking. Leffler (1985) reports that net hydrogen consumption of 2,500 SCF/B is typical in hydrocracking. Maples (1993) reports ranges of hydrogen consumption per barrel for hydrotreating different feeds and products and for hydrocracking at different firing rates. (Personal Communication with Phyllis Fox, July 6, 2007.) For example, Maples reports hydrogen usage factors of 200-300 SCF/B for hydrotreating heavy gas oil and 1,000-2,000 SCF/B for hydrocracking at various firing rates. (Id.) These sources report similar hydrogen usage for the same process and feed. However, the Maples usage factors span a wider range of feeds, products and processing intensity.

Declaration of G. Karras Page 5 of 20 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

Appended hereto as Attachment 8 is a preliminary projection of the post-Project hydrogen balance that I calculated using the Refinery-specific maximum production rates in attachments 2 and 6 and the hydrogen usage factors reported by Maples. These factors project less hydrogen use in hydrotreating than the factor reported in Attachment 5 and less use in Refinery hydrocracking than would be projected by the factor reported by Leffler. The projection may also be conservative because it does not account for all types of Refinery hydrogen use, such as hydrogen use in isomerization and vessel purging.

I found hydrogen use estimates for two Refinery units to compare with this projection. The Refinery estimated hydrogen usage of 1.2 MMSCF/day by its FGHT FCC Hydrotreater (BAAQMD App. 10158), which falls within the range projected for this unit in Attachment 8. It also reported hydrogen usage of about 39 MMSCF/day by its DHT Hydrotreater (Id.), which exceeds the projection for this unit in Attachment 8. These comparisons suggest that the projection appears accurate or conservative.

The lack of hydrogen data for other Refinery process units nevertheless creates significant uncertainty about actual hydrogen demand. The projection is reported as a range, bounded by a lower possible minimum and higher possible maximum, in order to address this uncertainty explicitly. This preliminary estimate should be revised when verifiable unit-specific hydrogen usage data are available, however; it is a reasonable projection based on the best evidence available as of the deadline for comment on the DEIR. The projection is summarized in the following table.

Preliminary post-Project Refinery hydrogen balance at maximum proposed productiona

H2 in million standard cubic feet/day (MMSCFD) Lower Bound Higher Bound Hydrogen production & recovery 330 MMSCFD 330 MMSCFD Hydrogen use in hydrotreating plants –8 MMSCFD –52 MMSCFD Hydrogen use in hydrocracking plants –371 MMSCFD –432 MMSCFD Balance: –49 MMSCFD –154 MMSCFD

a) At maximum proposed/permitted production. See Attachment 8 for detail.

Review of this projection shows that even at the lower bound of projected hydrogen demand, more hydrogen would be needed than could be produced in the Refinery’s new hydrogen facilities at maximum production rates. The expanded hydrocracking to produce high quality fuels from lower quality feedstock that is discussed above would be the primary cause of this hydrogen imbalance.

Based on this evidence, operating the proposed infrastructure to make more high quality transportation fuel from lower quality crude reliably would at times require the import of hydrogen to the Refinery through the proposed Contra Costa Pipeline.

These substantial interlocking changes in petroleum refinery processing intensity, hydrogen balance, and feedstock would interact on various time scales. Over years and decades, the essential interdependence between what petroleum is refined and what type

Declaration of G. Karras Page 6 of 20 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

of equipment refines it can change the type of petroleum resources that are developed for Bay Area refineries, which, in turn, can change the types of future refinery modifications geared to that future feedstock. (Attachment 7.) Purvin & Gertz identified the refinery configuration component of this feedstock-process equipment interdependence in 1992:

“Refineries designed for one type of crude cannot effectively utilize the other types of crude in significant quantities because their processing units are the wrong size. A ‘heavy crude’ refinery designed for 100,000 barrels of crude might have naphtha processing units sized for 10,000 barrels per day, for example. If that refinery tried to process 100,000 barrels per day of light crude, the naphtha production would be several times larger than 10,000 barrels per day. In order to stay within the naphtha processing capacity, the refiner would have to drastically reduce the amount of crude oil being processed. The very large residuum conversion unit installed in the heavy crude refinery would be essentially empty, and probably could not run at such low rates.

Forcing a very dissimilar crude into an existing refinery is like forcing a square peg into a round hole. It is possible, but the square peg must be very much smaller than the round peg which is removed from the hole.” Purvin & Gertz, 1992. Attachment 7 at 13.

The DEIR does not identify and does not discuss the potential effects of the Project’s Refinery infrastructure on future petroleum feedstock development, or consider how the Project might foreclose future feedstock and refining equipment options.

On shorter time scales of days to months, the Project could increase variability in both the crude slate and the intensity of Refinery processing to produce high quality fuels from changing crude slates. First, the Project would expand hydrocracking. Expanded hydrocracking increases a refinery’s flexibility to produce different product slates. (See Leffler, 1985; Berger, 1992.) Second, eight new and ten replaced tanks would increase Refinery storage capacity by at least 1,840,000 barrels. (DEIR at 3-38 through 3-45.) This increased storage would increase Refinery capacity to manage its newfound flexibility in hydrocracking products in order to produce a similar product slate from a wider range of feedstock.

Third, the expanded hydrogen production and new pipeline discussed above would increase Refinery capacity to manage hydrogen requirements for these crude slate swings. These Project components would give the Refinery both the ability to supply more hydrogen at maximum hydrocracking during swings to heavier, higher-sulfur feed, and the ability to export hydrogen for sale during swings to relatively lighter, less- contaminated crude slates. Fourth, the Project’s expanded reforming capacity and tankage would increase Refinery capacity to boost the octane rating of low-octane hydrocracker outputs at maximum hydrocracking rates. The proposed new 200,000 barrel tank for storage of CCR process feed and product is clearly not essential to the operation of the Refinery’s current reformers. However, this tank would increase

Declaration of G. Karras Page 7 of 20 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

Refinery capacity to manage reformer processing of the more variable hydrocracking output resulting from larger and more frequent swings in the Refinery feedstock.

The DEIR does not disclose this increased capacity for short-term crude slate switching as part of the Project’s flexibility objective, the potential for greater and more frequent feedstock swings, or their effects on Refinery operational reliability.

The DEIR acknowledges that the petroleum to be refined is at the core of the Project. (DEIR at 5-40.) It asserts that processing differing future crude slates and also producing more high-quality fuels from them are among the Project’s objectives. (DEIR at 3-4, 3-26.) It asserts that at least some Project components are necessary to achieve these objectives. (DEIR at 3-26, 6-6, 6-8, 6-10, 6-11.) However, the DEIR does not disclose the future crude slates that would be refined under the Project.

Further, the currently-proposed expansions in cracking and reforming production limits that are discussed above may not reflect the full potential for expanded processing of heavy, more contaminated feedstock because these are BAAQMD permit limits, not actual process design capacities. As such, these limits may be relaxed more than once during the life of the Project. For example, the proposed 76% expansion of sulfur production in Refinery Sulfur Recovery units (SRUs) documented in attachments 2 and 6 exceeds the 26-48% relaxation of cracking and reforming process unit limits discussed above. This suggests the potential for further future relaxation of these cracking and reforming production limits to match the larger SRU capacity limits. The DEIR does not identify actual process design capacities, or quantify the full potential for expanded processing of heavier, more contaminated crude slates in the Refinery under the Project.

An excerpt from a BAAQMD information request submitted to the Refinery in 2001 regarding a prior Refinery Permit Application for many of the components now included in the Project is appended hereto as Attachment 9. Among other information, Attachment 9 requests the following: “Please provide the maximum amount of high sulfur crude and/or blendstocks to be processed both daily and annually and the maximum sulfur content in each material.” The DEIR does not provide this information about sulfur, or about any other characteristics, of the crude slates for which the Project is designed, and further fails to identify the need for this information to assess the Project.

Process-specific Refinery production rates are related to pollutant production rates, pollutant release rates, and the degree of environmental health and safety hazard. The sizing and locations of toxic, hazardous and flammable material storage and transport facilities is related to these environmental health and safety impacts as well.

Further, the type, location and sizing of refinery infrastructure determine which types of feedstock will be produced and transported to the Refinery and which will not, and thereby affect the types and amounts of pollutants mobilized and released in production, transport and processing of Refinery feedstock. Heavier, higher sulfur crude oils typically have higher concentrations of toxic elements such as selenium. (Attachment 7.) A report I co-authored focused on flaring prevention, which provides further evidence of the higher pollution potential from refining heavy, high-sulfur crude,

Declaration of G. Karras Page 8 of 20 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

is appended hereto at Attachment 10. A technical paper that is focused on future fuel production risks and uncertainties is appended hereto as Attachment 11. Attachment 11 provides evidence that increasing refinery demand for heavier feedstock could dramatically increase carbon dioxide emissions from petroleum production and refining.

Finally, pollutant releases and environmental health and safety hazard from all these Project components are related to the time frames over which changes in feedstock processing occur. Over years and decades, establishing major refinery infrastructure requirements for heavier, higher-contaminant crude slates would increase pollutant releases and environmental health and safety impacts in and near the Refinery and the locations where its feedstock is produced. On time scales of days to months, more frequent and/or larger short-term shifts in Refinery feedstock could increase episodic pollutant releases and environmental health and safety impacts in and near the Refinery. All of these Project components must be included in a complete evaluation of potential environmental impacts from the Project.

In sum, the production of a heavier, more contaminated and more variable crude slate requires the expanded and more variable hydrocracking, catalytic cracking and reforming needed to process this slate. This expanded hydroprocessing, in turn, will at times require more hydrogen than would be produced on-site, thereby requiring expanded off-site as well as on-site hydrogen infrastructure, including the new proposed Contra Costa Pipeline. In my opinion, each of these Refinery feedstock production, Refinery hydrocarbon processing, and hydrogen infrastructure components are essential interlocking components of the Project.

All of these Project components must in my opinion be assessed in order to assess the potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project adequately. A series of errors and omissions in the DEIR that are documented above result in the failure of the DEIR to identify or assess these Project components.

3. The DEIR omits information about the Project’s environmental setting that must be considered to evaluate impacts, mitigation and alternatives properly.

The DEIR does not discuss unique local conditions in the environmental setting of the Project, including environmental conditions resulting in stronger episodic air pollutant exposures relative to continuous exposures and cumulative impacts of past pollution, or the nonrenewable natural resource setting of the Project.

The local setting includes wind patterns that result in relatively stronger short- term “episodic” concentrations of ambient air pollutants from local sources versus long- term concentrations, relative to other local settings. Richmond is aligned with the geography near San Francisco Bay’s Golden Gate, where dry-season daily winds from the northeastern Pacific, and calm winds in evenings, fall and winter are typical. A technical report on local air quality impacts associated with Bay Area refinery flaring is appended hereto as Attachment 12. Consistent with Richmond’s unique environmental setting, this report presents evidence showing that episodic air emissions from the

Declaration of G. Karras Page 9 of 20 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

refinery result in pronounced episodic air pollution that would not be detected in assessments focused on long-term average air quality alone.

A research paper regarding adverse health effects in African American residents living near Richmond’s chemical industries, including the Refinery, is appended hereto as Attachment 13. Attachment 13 provides evidence suggesting that the cumulative impacts of recurrent episodic pollution in Richmond have affected psychological as well as physical health among residents in this community. This evidence further supports the importance of understanding the past, present and future impacts of episodic pollution in Richmond. The findings also show the need for assessment of secondary impacts of pollutant releases on land use, education and economic factors.

The DEIR does not identify or discuss these aspects of the environmental setting, and erroneously draws conclusions from long-term average air data without considering this factor. Further, the DEIR does not discuss natural resource conditions that would interact with the Project to affect its potential impacts.

The DEIR reports that 25% of world oil reserves are sweet crude and implies that this supports the conclusion that the Refinery could not reliably operate at capacity without switching to sour, high-sulfur crude slates. (DEIR at 6-11.) The DEIR does not, however, report the total estimated crude oil reserves. These are estimated to be at least 1,239 billion barrels. (Attachment 11.) Based on these estimates, if the Refinery runs sweet crude at its current crude throughput of 250,000 BPD for 50 years, it would only consume 1.5% of currently estimated sweet crude reserves. The additional information thus suggests the issue is mainly one of feedstock cost to the Refinery. The crude reserve information that the DEIR omits is necessary to assess its conclusion.

Further, evidence that the potential effects of a transition to the production and refining of ever-heavier substitutes for conventional petroleum could increase carbon dioxide emissions in amounts greater than known control technologies could address to prevent increasing global concentrations of greenhouse gases. (Attachment 11.) These potential effects are significant globally. These effects would be caused by emissions from production and refining rather than from vehicle tailpipes. (Id.) Chevron’s current annual report to shareholders includes a chapter dedicated to the business opportunities presented by such “unconventional” petroleum reserves. The DEIR does not discuss this aspect of the environmental setting.

A presentation by Purvin & Gertz to the Oil Sands Chemistry and Engine Emissions Roadmap Workshop held in Edmonton, Alberta on June 6, 2005 is appended hereto as Attachment 14. Attachment 14 presents evidence that the timing and extent of production of the much heavier “unconventional” petroleum will be dependent on investment and infrastructure decisions made by refiners, particularly California refiners, in addition to those made by unconventional petroleum producers.

The Bay Area is the biggest refining center in the Western U.S. after Los Angeles. The Western market for fuel distribution is relatively isolated such that decisions at West Coast refineries strongly affect consumer choices about the origins of West Coast vehicle

Declaration of G. Karras Page 10 of 20 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

fuel, and thus future conditions favoring one energy source over another, throughout the Western U.S. Chevron is the largest refiner in the Bay Area. Its Richmond Refinery together with the ConocoPhillips Rodeo and Shell Martinez refineries would comprise a dominant portion of all Bay Area refining. These are the same three refineries for which interlocking hydrogen infrastructure favoring heavier, more contaminated petroleum feedstock production and refining would be developed under the Project.

Thus, the nonrenewable resource setting of the Project is unique from that in refining centers outside the Western U.S. and is changing rapidly in ways that could dramatically change the potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project’s interaction with this part of its environmental setting.

In my opinion, the DEIR omits information about the environmental setting of the Project that is necessary to fully evaluate Project impacts, mitigation and alternatives. The omitted information includes local conditions that result in more serious episodic air pollution than typical average air quality assessments would reveal, and information on the types and characteristics of petroleum resources that could be Refinery feedstock.

4. The Project as proposed without limits on its operating life will result in potentially significant and irreversible impacts that are not identified in the DEIR.

Evidence discussed above indicates that the Project would increase the Refinery’s fluid catalytic cracking (FCC), hydrocracking (TKC and TKN/ISO) and continuous catalytic reforming (CCR) production. These are among the most polluting refining processes. As they would process more hydrocarbons, these processes would create more pollutants. Those additional emissions are omitted from the DEIR.

Emission factors developed by the U.S. EPA for several refining processes and pollutants are available on its web site (epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch05/final/c05s01) and are appended hereto as Attachment 15. Even at the lowest end of the ranges reported in Attachment 15, FCC units are estimated to emit 100 pounds of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and seven pounds of particulate matter (PM10) per each thousand barrels of feed.

The Project could increase the FCC maximum feed rate by 30,000 barrels per day (BPD). At the 100 lb/1,000 BBL EPA emission factor this would increase SO2 emissions from the FCC by 3,000 pounds per day. At the 7 lb/1,000 BBL EPA emission factor, FCC PM10 emissions would increase by 210 lb/day. This is based on the lowest EPA emission factors for these pollutants in Attachment 15. Further, even if it is assumed that the full proposed TKC production of FCC feed will not be used, at these emission factors, an increase in FCC feed of 5,000 BPD would increase FCC emissions by about 90 tons/year for SO2 and 6.4 tons/year for PM10.

The Project would also increase emissions from flaring during unforeseen emergencies. This would result from the greater volumes of more contaminated gases that would be produced under high temperature and pressure in its expanded cracking and reforming, and from process instability during the feedstock transitions needed to process a wider range of crude oil. (Attachment 10.) Each factor—processing volume, intensity,

Declaration of G. Karras Page 11 of 20 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

and stability—would interact with the others to increase both the frequency and the magnitude of flaring from unforeseen events. Available data are limited to the volumes processed, and thus support only a partial, conservative estimate of potential emissions.

Maximum daily TKC, FCC and CCR throughputs could increase by 48%, 33% and 26% respectively, as shown above. In at least seven incidents from September 2005 through February 2007, flaring involving one or another of these process units was caused by conditions that may be classified as unforeseen emergencies. (Rule 12-12 Cause Analysis reports submitted to BAAQMD for the months of September 2005; January, February, March and May 2006 and January 2007.) Applying the throughput increase for each process unit to the frequency and also to the emission magnitude of its flaring based on these seven incidents, annual emissions from emergency flaring would increase by at least 5.8 tons for SO2 and 6.2 tons for VOC.

This additional pollution would emit from existing flares, and is not included in the emission estimates for the Project in the DEIR. Also, for safety reasons, emissions from emergency flaring would be allowed by current requirements to prevent non- emergency flaring under BAAQMD Rule 12-12.

These conservative estimates indicate that the Project could cause increases of at least 6.2 tons/year in VOC emissions, 6.4 tons/year in PM10 emissions and 95.8 tons/year in SO2 emissions from the FCC and emergency flaring that are not included in the DEIR’s Project emissions. When these emissions are included, net Project emissions of PM10 and SO2 exceed the DEIR’s stated significance criteria (see DEIR at 4.3-35, Table 4.3-10), and VOC emissions exceed the criteria by a wider margin.

More important, episodic emissions resulting from the Project would exceed levels that cause episodic air quality impacts locally. Analysis of refinery emissions and local air monitoring demonstrates that elevated hourly-average ambient air pollutant concentrations are strongly associated with episodic emissions exceeding 500 lb/d. (Attachment 10 at 1; Attachment 12.) The Project could exceed this local impact threshold by a wide margin. The FCC could emit at least 3,000 lb/d at maximum production, as shown above, and emergency flaring can emit more than 10,000 lb/d.

For example, the January 15, 2007 Crude Unit fire at the Refinery dramatically transformed a relatively smaller flaring episode initiated by failure to return a compressor to service before initiating a planned Crude Unit maintenance shutdown. (Rule 12-12- Cause Report.) The major flaring that resulted lasted for 38 days (Id.) and emitted up to 15,600 lb/d of combined SO2 and VOC (see www.baaqmd.gov/flares).

A technical review addressed to Mayor McLaughlin and Richmond City Council members, in response to requests following the February 27, 2007 Special Hearing on catastrophic chemical incident prevention, is appended hereto as Attachment 16. The analysis of catastrophic risk in Attachment 16 applies to the Project. The Project would increase the risk of a potentially catastrophic spill, fire or explosion at the Refinery for many of the same reasons that it would cause increased emergency flaring. It would increase the amounts and toxicity of hazardous gases in Refinery process units, put these

Declaration of G. Karras Page 12 of 20 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

materials under high temperature and pressure, and increase the potential for process instability during feedstock transitions. (Attachments 10 and 16.)

Attachment 16 purposefully quotes Contra Costa County’s testimony in the City’s February 2007 special hearing on catastrophic risk: “All technology fails at some time.” Refinery flare gas systems are like safety valves that relieve overpressures to prevent emergency situations from cascading into potentially catastrophic incidents, but like all technology, these systems will fail at some time. Indeed, this is arguably probable, given a 30-50 year Project life. The Industrial Safety Ordinance favors Inherently Safer Systems for precisely such reasons. In this regard, the Refinery’s recurrent emergency flares represent “near misses” that point to an existing need for inherently safer systems.

The Project, however, would expose greater volumes of toxic and flammable gases to high heat and pressure in processes that could experience more frequent instability during feedstock switching. This is an inherently more hazardous system, and would further increase the risk that a potentially catastrophic incident might occur.

The DEIR does not identify the potential for increased catastrophic risks from the greater volumes of toxic and flammable gases at high temperature and pressure in process reactor vessels caused by expanded hydrocracking or catalytic cracking. (DEIR at 4.13-6 through 4.13-22.) It does not identify the potential that switching feedstock may reduce process stability and increase such risks. (Id.) It notes that the Refinery already uses very large amounts of various inherently hazardous materials and the Project would add more of these materials. (4.13-19 through 4.13-21.) However, the DEIR does not identify or analyze catastrophic risks created by the interconnection of existing and proposed Refinery process hazards.1

The roughly tenfold increase in selenium discharge caused when refineries switch to heavy, sour crude; its significant impacts on San Francisco Bay, and the failure of treatment designed for one refinery crude slate and configuration to remove selenium from the waste water of another, have been documented extensively. (See e.g., Nichols et al., 1986. Science. 231: 567-573; Johns et al., 1988. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 26; Ohlendorf and Fleming, 1988. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 9(19): 487-495; Cutter, 1989. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 28: 13-34; Cal. Dept. of Fish and Game, Various. Selenium Verification Study 1986, 1986-1987 and 1988-1990 reports; USEPA, 1990. Decision under Clean Water Act § 304(l); Unocal Corp. 1991. San Francisco Refinery Selenium Source Control Study; Luoma et al., 1992. Env. Sci. Technol. 26(3): 485-491; SFBRWQCB, 1992. Derivation of Site-specific Water Quality Criteria for Selenium in San Francisco Bay; SFBRWQCB, Various. Mass Emission Reduction Strategy for Selenium. October 1992 and June 1993 Supplemental staff reports; CBE, 1994. Report No. 94-1; CH2Mhill, 1994. Bird Use and Reproduction at the Richmond Refinery Water Enhancement Wetland; Luoma and Nichols, 1995. In U.S.G.S. Water Resources Investigations Report 94-4015; Brown and Luoma, 1995. In U.S.G.S. Circular 1108; Luoma and Linville, 1996. In San Francisco Estuary Institute RMP 1995

1 In one important example, it does not analyze catastrophic impacts or flare emissions from the interconnections of these process hazards with the LPG Spheres, which I commented on in 2002.

Declaration of G. Karras Page 13 of 20 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

Annual Report. 160-170; CBE, 1996. Report No. 96-1; Western States Petroleum Association, 1994. Selenium Speciation Final Report; WSPA, 1995. Removal of Selenium by Iron-based Treatment Processes Final Report; WSPA. 1995. Ion Exchange Process and Metal Oxide Adsorption Treatability Studies for Selenium Removal from Refinery Wastewater; WSPA, 1995. Selenium Removal from Refinery Wastewaters: Biological Field Testing Report. See also Attachment 10 at 16.)

In contrast, the DEIR cites only an unsigned, three paragraph speculative opinion of the Project Sponsor on selenium (Chamberlain, 2005) that, in turn, cites only one undisclosed source, to support its conclusory statement that the Project’s crude slate switch will cause minimal if any selenium discharge increase. (DEIR at 4.8-22.) The DEIR makes the same unsupported statement regarding the Project’s potential to increase mercury pollution of the Bay. (Id.)

Mercury poses an even greater potential for increased pollution from the Project’s proposed heavier, more contaminated crude than selenium. The most contaminated crude oil can have 50 times higher selenium content than the least contaminated crude, but it can have thousands of times higher mercury content. (Attachment 10 at 16, Table 13.)

I investigated mercury releases from the Refinery in 2001, in connection with the proposed re-issuance of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit governing the Refinery’s discharges to the Bay. This investigation found a potential for environmentally significant mercury discharges to the Bay from the Refinery via air emission fallout. Specifically, a portion of the mercury in the crude slate is emitted from the Refinery and is then deposited on the Bay’s surface or in its catchment, where storm runoff then moves the mercury fallout into the Bay.

In 2005 and again in May 2007, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for the San Francisco Bay Region ordered the Refinery and other Bay Area refiners to investigate their mercury emissions fallout to the Bay. (Cal. Water Code § 13267 requests dated February 17, 2005 and May 7, 2007; Staff Report, April 11 2007 Board Meeting, Item 10.) In May 2007 the Los Angeles RWQCB ordered a similar investigation in the Los Angeles Area. (§ 13267 request dated May 15, 2007.)

The Refinery’s NPDES Permit does not limit mercury air emission fallout to the Bay. (Order No. R2-2006-0035. See www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/OND- 06_001-120.htm.) The Permit and Fact Sheet that forms its basis find a “reasonable potential” that Refinery discharges of mercury, selenium, and several other toxic pollutants may cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards and impairment of the Bay. (Id.) The RWQCB calculated effluent limits that would ensure that water quality standards are achieved. (Id.) The RWQCB found that Refinery discharges exceeded these effluent levels calculated to protect the Bay as of the most recent permit re-issuance in 2006. (Id.) Based in part on the latter finding, the Permit currently excuses the Refinery from meeting these limits to protect the Bay. (Id.)

Declaration of G. Karras Page 14 of 20 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

The DEIR’s assertions that the Project would not cause significant impacts from increased selenium and mercury releases to the Bay, and that the NPDES Permit will ensure against such impacts (DEIR at 4.8-21 through 4.8-24), are unsupported.

With respect to global warming, the DEIR ignores the effects of the Project’s future feedstock, which would continue and further increase the Refinery’s major contribution to carbon dioxide (CO2) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

I applied greenhouse gas emission factors for gasoline that are used in Table 2 of Attachment 11 to the Refinery based on 80% of its 250,000 BPD crude input capacity, or 200,000 BPD, to illustrate the limitations in the DEIR analysis. The results are rough estimates of emissions as CO2 equivalents in millions of metric tons per year, and are presented in the table below.

Carbon dioxide emissions pre- and post-Project, in millions of metric tons per year Estimated from fossil fuel chain lifecycle factors* Estimated in DEIR

Conventional Refining Refinery, Pre-project Crude 1.66 1.73

Conventional Production & Refining Refinery, Post-project Crude 2.22 2.63

Enhanced Production & Refining Recovery Heavy 2.42 Crude (low end)

Enhanced Production & Refining Recovery Heavy 4.20 Crude (high end)

Potential increase 2.54 2.47

* Emission factors from Attachment 11, Table 2 applied to 200,000 BPD as gasoline.

Comparison of these estimates with the DEIR estimates suggests that Refinery emissions now are consistent with those predicted from refining of conventional crude, at 1.73 and 1.66 metric tons/y, respectively. However, total post-Project emissions from the Refinery alone would exceed the low end of the estimates for emissions from refining and production of heavy crude using enhanced recovery. Upstream emissions from producing the new heavier feedstock would add to the DEIR’s 2.63 million metric ton/y estimate for onsite emissions. Total post-Project emissions from the Refinery and from supplying its new heavier crude slate may approach or exceed the 4.2 million ton/y high end estimate for enhanced recovery production and refining of heavy crude.

Including emissions from the upstream activities that are required to supply the Project’s heavier feedstock, the Project could emit about 2.5 million metric tons of GHG per year. This exceeds the DEIR’s maximum estimate by about 1.6 tons/y, or 178%.

Declaration of G. Karras Page 15 of 20 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

Downstream GHG emissions from combustion of Refinery products in vehicles (not shown in the table) are even larger, but would not be expected to increase, assuming the DEIR’s assertion that Refinery product volume would not occur is correct. (See Attachment 11.) The Project would contribute to the continuation of these emissions. These downstream GHG emissions would remain at about eight million metric tons per year, but their portion of total fossil fuel chain lifecycle emissions would decline from 78% pre-Project to 65% post-Project as emissions from refining and production increase. Total emissions associated with the Refinery would reach an estimated 12 million tons/y.

Production of the Project’s heavier crude feedstock, and its resulting emissions, would be necessary consequences of the Project. New Refinery infrastructure geared to heavier crude would result in the development and production of this resource instead of a different feedstock that the new infrastructure could not use efficiently or economically. (See discussion of Attachment 7 above.) Further, applying interlocking infrastructure for heavier crude refining to the Refinery and also the Shell Martinez and ConocoPhillips Rodeo refineries with the proposed Contra Costa Pipeline would extend this impact to most of the second largest refining center in the Western U.S. vehicle fuels market. (Id.)

Although estimates based on currently available data have many uncertainties, the significance of the potentially substantial increase in GHG emissions from production and refining of heavier refinery feedstock is undeniable. (Attachment 11.) A switch to heavier and unconventional crude production and refining would be likely to cause emissions in excess of the abilities of new, developing control technologies, such as carbon sequestration. (Id.) GHG emissions in the range that could result from the Project would overwhelm the expected effects of several measures which would otherwise make progress toward the objectives of recent State climate protection policies. (State Attorney General’s comments, FEIR SCH# 2005092028. May 8, 2007.)

The potential for severe impacts including sea level rise, flooding, drought and disruption of agricultural and municipal water supplies if rising GHG emissions are not curbed within 10-50 years is now well documented and beyond reasonable dispute. The critical point in the emission trend line will occur within the technically feasible 30-50 year life of the Project.

Locally important potential impacts from the Project thus include the potential for flooding of low lying areas near San Francisco Bay, and drinking water supply impacts, in addition to direct and indirect impacts from increased episodic and chronic pollutant exposures. Chronic and recurrent acute exposures to VOC, SO2, hydrogen sulfide, PM10, selenium, mercury, and other pollutants released by the Project may, individually or in combination, cause toxicity and direct impacts on environmental health. Indirect, secondary and cumulative impacts could include impacts from lost days at school and work due to pollution-related illness, and psychological (e.g., Attachment 13) or community image impacts. Combined with flooding and water supply impacts, these pollution impacts could also negatively affect uses of land, and exacerbate existing employment opportunity and economic development problems in Richmond.

Declaration of G. Karras Page 16 of 20 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

Review of additional data, including especially the chemical composition and characteristics of the specific crude oil and gas oil resources in the “wider range” of feedstock proposed by the Project, could identify additional Project impacts that may now remain undisclosed. For example, if the new crude slate has different amounts of aromatics and cycloparaffins, the Project might result in currently undisclosed impacts from increased tailpipe emissions of pollutants such as VOC or PM10 or more severe toxicity impacts in the event of an oil spill.

In my opinion, potential impacts of the Project on air quality, public health, water quality, water supply and land use would be significant, and it would foreclose some important future options for conservation of nonrenewable resources and development of alternative energy resources for climate protection. Significant impacts would result from the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the Project. These effects include increased acute and chronic exposures to a combination of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, volatile and toxic hydrocarbons, hydrogen sulfide and other pollutants. They also include increased catastrophic risks, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and foreclosure of opportunities for the wider development of less harmful energy options.

The impacts on nonrenewable resource use, the foreclosure of some energy options for climate protection, and global warming-related flooding of low lying areas including areas near Richmond’s shoreline, would be irreversible. The potential catastrophic impacts, if realized, would be irreversible.

Except for a VOC air quality impact, the DEIR does not identify these significant potential impacts. A root cause of these impacts would be the development and import of an inherently harmful feedstock and expansion of inherently hazardous systems necessary to process it. The DEIR ignores this root cause, and even fails to report the composition and characteristics of the wider range of crude feedstock proposed. The Refinery already contributes to selenium and mercury pollution that impairs San Francisco Bay and violates water quality standards, and its heavier, higher-sulfur crude slate is likely to further increase mercury and/or selenium releases. It is further my opinion that the significance of these mercury and selenium impacts could be confirmed, and additional impacts likely would be identified, if crude slate data were provided for public review.

5. The DEIR does not identify or evaluate known, feasible measures that might mitigate significant environmental impacts resulting from the Project.

The DEIR asserts that VOC emissions from the Project could not be mitigated. This is incorrect. Controlling existing uncontrolled pressure relief devices (PRDs) at the Refinery, and marine loading of distillate fuels at its Long Wharf, could partially mitigate emissions of VOC, as well as catastrophic risks, resulting from the Project.

I participated, along with Refinery representatives and others, in BAAQMD technical working groups and workshops that assessed both of these measures in 2005. Based in part on these assessments, BAAQMD reported its own analyses of PRD and marine loading controls. These reports remain available today on the BAAQMD web

Declaration of G. Karras Page 17 of 20 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

site. (www.baaqmd.gov/pln/ruledev/regulatory_public_hearings.htm.) These reports identify technically feasible measures to reduce VOC and other pollutant emissions from uncontrolled PRDs and marine loading of distillate fuels. (Id.) BAAQMD chose not to require these measures for reasons that do not apply to this Project review. Some details of the PRDs review illustrate this point.

Pressure relief devices are valves or rupture disks that protect equipment from overpressures caused by upsets. Uncontrolled PRDs dump gases from the pressurized process vessels directly to the atmosphere. PRDs serving large, high-pressure vessels can release process gases such as VOC and hydrogen sulfide in amounts up to many tons within minutes or hours. (Id.) Thus, controlling existing uncontrolled PRDs on large high-pressure processes, such as the Refinery’s Isomax plant, could partially mitigate both the VOC emissions from the Project and its catastrophic risks.

PRD releases are controlled by piping the relief gases to a control device, which is required to achieve at least 90% destruction of VOC. (Id.) Further support for the feasibility of controlling PRDs, in addition to the BAAQMD findings discussed above, is provided by the fact that PRD control is demonstrated in practice at the Refinery, and at other refineries. Refiners have been required to install controlled PRDs on new and modified equipment and have done so successfully. (Id.) Controlled PRDs are often routed to flare systems. In the recent BAAQMD rulemaking, the refiners resisted requirements for existing PRDs to be controlled, citing the potential cost of new flares.

Although it found that controlling existing PRDs is feasible, BAAQMD declined to require this measure proactively, opting instead to require more intensive preventive monitoring which is followed by control requirements only after a particular unit has repeated emissions. (Id.) Importantly, the two main reasons BAAQMD cited for not requiring this feasible measure in its rulemaking do not apply to this Project review. First, BAAQMD found that, for reasons specific to its rulemaking process, it should not include catastrophic risk prevention as an additional benefit that, together with the air quality benefits of controlling PRDs, would weigh in favor of requiring control. (Id.) In contrast, assessing mitigation for significant potential catastrophic risk and air quality impacts of the proposed Project is required.

BAAQMD cited the potential cost of constructing new flares at several refineries solely for the purpose of controlling existing PRDs as the second main reason why it declined to require control of all PRDs industry-wide. (Id.) In contrast, the Project as proposed includes a new flare. Refinery flare systems are typically designed and operated to serve multiple units. If incorporated in environmental design review now, PRD control as mitigation for the Project would afford economies that were unavailable or not considered by the BAAQMD in its recent rulemaking.

In my opinion, the DEIR’s failure to identify or assess feasible mitigation for significant potential air quality and catastrophic risk impacts of the Project, and in particular, its failure to identify PRD and marine loading controls, was inappropriate.

Declaration of G. Karras Page 18 of 20 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

6. The DEIR does not evaluate alternatives to the proposed Project that would avoid its significant environmental impacts while better meeting its stated objectives, and were identified by CBE and Richmond Planning Commissioners as warranting evaluation during the June 7, 2007 DEIR hearing.

The DEIR does not disclose the feedstock that would be produced for the Project, the expansion of cracking that would process it, the full hydrogen needs of this processing, the full uses of the hydrogen pipeline or the fundamentally interdependent nature of these Project components. It then omits multiple significant potential impacts of the Project, and omits comparisons addressing the omitted impacts from its comparison of the Project with alternatives, in Section 6.

Compounding these problems, except for the no project alternative, which is the existing Refinery, no alternative chosen for analysis in the DEIR is designed or described to account for the essential interdependence of the Project’s components. This leads to errors in the design, description and analysis of alternatives. For example, the DEIR:

– omits the reduced hydrocracking, hydrogen demand, flare emissions and GHG emissions from sweet crude in a low sulfur production alternative, and the project objectives sweet crude would achieve in a reduced-reformer alternative (p. 6-11); – rejects alternatives based on process analysis that assumes sweet crude will be unavailable without disclosing contrary data (Id.) (see page 10 above); – fails to explain that expanded hydrogen production is keyed primarily to lower quality crude slates, rather than stated Project objectives (p. 6-7); and – excludes most of the Project’s significant impacts by analyzing only one Project component in its analysis of the environmentally superior alternative (p. 6-15).

Considering these cumulative errors and omissions, it is not surprising that every alternative the DEIR chooses to analyze fails to meet one or more Project objectives, and none of the alternatives in the DEIR is designed to address all significant Project impacts.

At the June 2007 Hearing CBE, community members and Planning Commission members commented that an additional alternative should be analyzed. The essential components of this alternative would phase in renewable energy for refinery operations and fuel cell or battery-electric vehicles, establish community funds to help phase in green energy and to mitigate catastrophic impacts; and avoid pollution from expanded processing of heavier, more contaminated feedstock.

In my opinion, the DEIR fails to describe the Project adequately for comparison of alternatives, and excludes from this comparison many significant potential impacts of the Project and every alternative that might lessen or avoid them while meeting most project objectives. I concur with Planning Commission members’ comments that an alternative which was described as to its essential components at the June 2007 DEIR Hearing should be analyzed. It will in my opinion be important to fully address the interdependent nature of Project components, including feedstock, process configuration and the proposed pipeline, in this future analysis.

Declaration of G. Karras Page 19 of 20 Attachment to Comment Letter 5.09

7. The DEIR does not provide adequate information for environmental review because it does not adequately describe the Project, identify its potentially significant impacts and means to mitigate them, or evaluate an alternative to avoid these impacts that planning commissioners and CBE identified for evaluation.

For all of the reasons discussed above, it is my opinion that the DEIR is deficient and that it will need to be revised substantially and re-circulated for public review in order to allow for adequate public review of the proposed Project.

I submitted a declaration including points 1 through 3 above along with all the attachments referenced herein on July 9, 2007.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

Executed this __13th_ day of July 2007 at Oakland, California.

_____ORIGINAL SIGNED BY______Gregory Karras

Declaration of G. Karras Page 20 of 20 5. Responses to Late-Received Comments

5.09 Citizens for Better Environment, Greg Karras, November 15, 2007 (CBE#2) Responses to Comments In this letter, the commenter restates a number of points that were made previously by CBE regarding the adequacy of the information used in preparing the Draft EIR and regarding the conclusions of the EIR. These points were responded to thoroughly in the Final EIR document, which includes the Draft EIR and its single-volume Appendices, published in May 2007, as well as the Response to Comments and its two-volumes of Appendices, published in January 2008. In particular, see the responses to comment letters CBE and CBE-A, as well as responses to comment letters ABJC and ABJC-A, and the Master Responses, all in Volume 3 of the Final EIR.

The commenter also argues that: 1) because CBE requested information regarding the Small Power Plant Exemption (SPPE) application by Chevron to California Energy Commission (CEC); 2) because Chevron suspended its application and did not provide the information requested by CBE; and, 3) because there are differences between information submitted to CEC and information in the DEIR; the City should take over the role of the CEC and provide all information requested by CBE in regard to the SPPE application. See Responses to DOJ#2 (all) and DOJ#3-1 for a discussion of the relationship between the City’s review of the Proposed Project under the California Environmental Quality Act and CEC review of Chevron’s SPPE application.

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.09-1 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters March 2008

Comment Letter 5.10

5. Responses to Late-Received Comments

5.10 Contra Costa Council, Linda Best, October 12, 2007 Responses to Comments CCC-1 Comment noted.

CCC -2 Comment noted

CCC -3 Comment noted.

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.10-1 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters March 2008

Tim Morgan

From: Lamont Thompson [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:55 AM To: Tim Morgan; Chuck Bennett Cc: Ellen J. Garber; Elena Saxonhouse; Brewster Birdsall Subject: FW: TOM BUTT E-FORUM: Chevron and Design Review

FYI

-----Original Message----- From: Curtner, Scott [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 10:21 PM To: [email protected]; Lamont Thompson Subject: Re: TOM BUTT E-FORUM: Chevron and Design Review

Dear Lamont, Please seriously consider the negative externalities Tom lays out in his below email. There surely must be a way to offset or reduce Chevron's impact. Perhaps GHG sequestration, or equivalent off-set investment in local renewable technology?

Sent from Scott's BlackBerry

----- Original Message ----- From: Butt, Tom Sent: Fri Dec 07 17:42:50 2007 Subject: TOM BUTT E-FORUM: Chevron and Design Review

Let's say you are an ordinary homeowner or small business owner in Richmond and you want to expand your home or office building. You have a design prepared and submit it to the City of Richmond for Design Review. When the application is complete and accepted by the Richmond Planning Department, it will be scheduled for a hearing by the Design Review Board maybe six weeks to two months later.

Let's say you are a $100 billion oil company and have a $1 billion project that has to go to Design Review. The Richmond Planning Department will move everyone else aside and get you into a Design Review Board hearing within a week , even if your application is incomplete. That's what has happened as the Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project gets its first taste of public scrutiny next week. Click here. Money and power talks in Richmond, and it talks loud and clear to city officials at the highest level.

Let's say you are a refinery neighbor and you got an official notice (Click here. ) of the Design Review Board Hearing from the Richmond Planning Department saying "applicant proposes to replace the existing Hydrogen Plant, Power Plant, and reformer, and install new equipment in order to increase ability to produce gasoline that meets California specifications and uses a wider range of crude oil sources than are currently processed. The new equipment will improve reliability, energy efficiency, and add more environmental controls." Sounds pretty good, huh? Rather stay home and watch TV than go down to City Hall on a cold, rainy night - especially when a project is described in such glowing and innocuous terms? Is there a downside? Surely, the Richmond Planning Department would have told the residents of Richmond if there were any.

Well, they didn't They left that part out. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has this to say about the Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project:

1 Operational activities associated with the implementation of the Proposed Project would increase air pollutant emissions of volatile organic compounds by potentially significant quantities. This impact would be significant and unavoidable both for the Proposed Project and cumulatively as well. Proposed Project activities could result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the Refinery.

The major concern for Richmond is that the Chevron Refinery is already a huge source of unhealthy emissions that impact Richmond residents, including:[1]

Reactive organic gases 1,811 tons annually

Carbon monoxide (CO) 563 tons annually

Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 1,1,60 tons annually

Oxides of sulfer (SO2) 1,500 tons annually

Particulate matter (PM) 248 tons annually

According to the DEIR, some emissions would be reduced, while others would increase:

NOx reduce by 111.2 tons annually

SO2 reduce by 21.7 tons annually

CO increase by 100.4 tons annually

PM increase by 12.2 tons annually

VOC increase by 26.7 tons annually

In addition, the DEIR projects that CO2 emission will increase by 898,000 metric tons annually, and the DEIR basically throws in the mitigation towel for the increased emissions:

Through the addition of air pollution controls and other concurrent process changes, the net effect of the Proposed Project would be to make substantive reductions of NOX and SO2 emissions compared to existing conditions and the net increase of CO and PM emissions would be below the significance thresholds. However, total VOC emissions would be above the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Chevron does not have any available additional contemporaneous emission reduction offsets that could be used to mitigate this significant impact. Therefore, Proposed Project operational emissions of VOC would be significant and unavoidable and emissions of NOx, SO2, CO, and PM pollutants would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None available. Because Chevron does not have any available additional contemporaneous VOC emission reduction offsets that could be used to mitigate this significant impact. Therefore, there are no feasible mitigation measures that could reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

2 Significance after Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.

The DEIR does not even treat greenhouse gases as a negative impact, drawing a strong letter from California Attorney General Jerry Brown. Regarding greenhouse gases, Brown states:

The hydrogen plant is responsible for the majority of the greenhouse gas emissions from the project, according to the body of the EIR, emitting up to 898,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. DEIR p. 4.3-40. This estimate may, however, be a substantial understatement: In an attachment to the Appendix, which was not made publicly available at the City's website like other documents, potential greenhouse gas emissions appear to be up to 1,961,592 million (sic) metric tons. See Appendix, Chevron Renewal Project, Greenhouse gasses Emissions Estimate Inventory. This number seems more realistic given the upgrades to the hydrogen plant will result in increased functioning of at least 30% and possibly up to 55%, over current facilities. DEIR p. 3-28. Moreover, the DEIR does not take into account the Project's production of GHGs other than carbon dioxide, such as nitrous oxides, methane and sulfur hexafluoride. It is also unclear whether the DEIR's current estimates include increases attributable to flaring and whether the estimates account for the impact from the foreseeable Praxair Contra Costa Hydrogen Pipeline.

The impact of greenhouse gases is typically perceived as global climate change, but the impacts are local. As a low-lying waterfront city, Richmond stands to sustain major impacts from rising water levels that could flood developed areas.

In addition to greenhouse gases produced in the refining process, the project will expand production capacity by 6 percent, which would be approximately 14,400 bbls. per day. That's 604,800 gallons of product per day, or 218 million gallons per year. Each gallon of gasoline, which weighs about 6.3 pounds, could produce 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned. That's 2.2 million tons of greenhouse gas annually from the 6 percent refinery capacity increase.

An examination of the "transportation energy intensity" of buildings has revealed that getting people to and from buildings uses more energy than the buildings themselves consume...Indeed, the California Energy Commission has identified transportation as the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions - a total of 41%. The lion's share of this is coming from those of us who drive cars and light trucks.[2]

It appears that there is an effort at the highest level to fastrack required approvals for the Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project through City of Richmond discretionary review processes, to ignore City ordinances governing those processes, to diminish the ability of the Design Review Board to impose conditions of approval, and to deny the residents of Richmond a fair opportunity to participate in the process.

What can you do? Click here for ways that Design Review can improve the project, and write to the Planning Project Manager, Lamont Thompson ([email protected]) or better still, show up at the hearing and give them a piece of your mind.

WANT TO RECEIVE TOM BUTT E-FORUM AND OTHER ACTION ALERTS ON RICHMOND POLITICAL AND COMMUNITY ISSUES DELIVERED TO YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS? EMAIL YOUR NAME AND EMAIL ADDRESS AND/OR THE NAMES AND EMAIL ADDRESSES OF OTHERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE PLACED ON THE MAILING LIST AND THE MESSAGE "SUBSCRIBE" TO [email protected] . 3 COMMENTS, ARGUMENTS AND CORRECTIONS ARE WELCOME. TOM BUTT IS A MEMBER OF THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL WHEN OPINIONS AND VIEWS EXPRESSED, WITHOUT OTHER ATTRIBUTION, IN TOM BUTT E-FORUM, THEY ARE THOSE OF TOM BUTT AND DO NOT REFLECT OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POSITIONS OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND OR THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. VISIT THE TOM BUTT WEBSITE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT TOM BUTT'S ACTIVITIES ON THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL: http://www.tombutt.com . PHONE 510/236-7435 OR 510/237-2084. SUBSCRIPTION TO THIS SERVICE IS AT THE PERSONAL DISCRETION OF THE RECIPIENT AND MAY BE TERMINATED BY RESPONDING WITH "UNSUBSCRIBE." IT MAY TAKE A FEW DAYS TO REMOVE ADDRESSES FROM THE DISTRIBUTION LIST

______

[1] DEIR, Table 4.3-3

[2] September 2007 edition of Environmental News, quoted in Livable Places Update, Local Governmnet Commission, www.lgc.org .

4 5. Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

5.11 Scott Curtner, December 7, 2007

The following responses address the commenter’s request that remarks via email forwarded by the commenter made on December 7, 2007 by Richmond City Council Member Tom Butt be considered by the City.

Responses to Comments CURTNER-1 Since the publication of the Draft EIR, additional measures have been developed to mitigate the VOC emissions from the Proposed Project. These measures would reduce the impact of the VOC emissions from the Proposed Project to less-than- significant levels. For updated information regarding these conclusions, please see Master Responses 2.4 and 2.5 in the Final EIR Volume 3.

CURTNER-2 For updated information regarding air emissions attributable to the Proposed Project, please see Master Response 2.5 in the Final EIR Volume 3.

CURTNER-3 For updated information regarding these conclusions, please see Response CURTNER-1, above, and Master Responses 2.4 and 2.5 in the Final EIR Volume 3.

CURTNER-4 As discussed in Master Response 2.4, Subsection 2.4.2 Quantification of Project- Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Final EIR Volume 3, the Draft EIR

reported emissions of CO2 alone because emissions of the other five greenhouse gases are expected to be minimal. The Proposed Project would not emit

hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), or sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)

and the estimated emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) would be

less than 0.1% of the of the total estimated CO2 equivalent emissions , or approximately 898 metric tons per year.

See also Responses DOJ-8, DOJ-12, and Master Responses 2.2 and 2.4 in the Final EIR Volume 3.

CURTNER-5 See Master Response 2.4 in the Final EIR Volume 3.

CURTNER-6 Regarding the concern that the Refinery production would increase, please see Responses PUBLIC-87 and CBD-9 in Volume 3 of the Final EIR. Mobile emissions calculations are discussed in Response CBD-10, in the same volume.

CURTNER-7 Comment noted.

CURTNER-8 The City review process started in April 9, 2005, with the filing of a Conditional Use Application by Chevron. Preparation of the Draft EIR began with filing a Notice of Preparation and a Public Scoping Meeting held on June 25, 2005. Preparation of the Draft EIR proceeded, but necessarily awaited completion of

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.11-1 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters March 2008 5. Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

Chevron’s ongoing design of project components and resolution of permit applications to BAAQMD. The Draft EIR was published on May 11, 2007. A Public Hearing on the Draft held by the Richmond Planning Commission on June 7, 2007. The public review period for the Draft EIR, originally noticed to end on June 25th, was extended to July 9th, for a total public review period of 59 calendar days. The Final EIR, which includes responses to comments received on the Draft EIR, was published on January 25, 2008, with the publication of the Notice of Availability. The Final EIR has been available for public review since that date. The Richmond Design Review Board held its public hearing on the project on January 31, 2008. By the time the Planning Commission holds a hearing on the Final EIR, nearly three years will have elapsed from the date upon which Chevron filed its Conditional Use Application.

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.11-2 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters March 2008 Comment Letter 5.12 Tim Morgan

From: Lamont Thompson [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:54 AM To: Tim Morgan; Chuck Bennett Cc: Ellen J. Garber; Elena Saxonhouse; Brewster Birdsall Subject: FW: Chevron plant

FYI

-----Original Message----- From: Jeff Shea [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 7:27 PM To: Lamont Thompson Subject: Chevron plant

Dear Mr. Thompson, After reading about the increase of gasses and pollutants from the newly proposed Chevron plant, I think it would be unconscionable for the city of Richmond to approve it or anything remotely like it. Jeff Shea Richmond Resident and Business Owner --

5. Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters

5.12 Jeff Shea, December 13, 2007 Responses to Comments SHEA-1 See Master Responses 2.5 and 2.9 in the Final EIR.

Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project 5.12-1 ESA / 205166 Responses to Late-Received Comment Letters March 2008