Long Beach City Council
January 4, 2022

4943-012acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
JAVIER J. CASTRO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
KENDRA D. HARTMANN*
DARIEN K. KEY
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
TARA C. MESSING

Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

*Not admitted in California.

Licensed in Colorado.

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444-6201
FAX: (916) 444-6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080-7037
___________

TEL: (650) 589-1660
FAX: (650) 589-5062
[email protected]

printed on recycled paper

November 5, 2021

Via Email & Overnight Mail

Mayor Robert Garcia
Long Beach City Council
Monique De La Garza
City Clerk
Port of Long Beach
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 11th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]

Re: Appeal of Approval of World Oil Tank Installation Project and Initial Study/Negative Declaration (SCH: 2020100119)

Dear Mayor Garcia, Councilmembers, Ms. De La Garza:

We are writing on behalf of Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (“SAFER CA”) and Long Beach residents Nicholas Garcia, Sopha Sum, and Sophall Sum to appeal the Board of Harbor Commissioners’ October 28, 2021 decision to approve a Harbor Development Permit (No. 19-066) and approval of the Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration (“IS/ND”) for the World Oil Tank Installation Project (“Project”), proposed by Ribost Terminal, LLC dba World Oil Terminals (“Applicant”). The Project seeks to construct two new 25,000-barrel petroleum storage tanks at the existing World Oil Terminal owned by Applicant located at the Port.1 The terminal is 261,000 square feet (about 6 acres) and contains seven existing petroleum tanks of various sizes totaling a capacity of 502,000 barrels.2 The two tanks would provide additional storage capacity of petroleum for refining and distribution and would make two of its existing larger tanks available for lease by

1 IS/ND, p. 2-1.
2 IS/ND, p. 1-1.

November 5, 2021

4943-012acp

printed on recycled paper
third-party vendors.3 The IS/ND estimates a 10 percent increase in truck trips, as well as an increase in average barrel throughput of fuel oil, but not of crude oil, over existing operations at the facility.4

We previously submitted comments, along with our technical consultant, emissions and air quality expert Dr. Phyllis Fox, on the Draft IS/ND on November 20, 2020. After the Port released a Staff Report with responses to comments, we submitted rebuttal comments to the Board of Harbor Commissioners ahead of its October 28, 2021 hearing. Those comments are attached to this appeal and are incorporated by reference herein.

I. APPELLANT CONTACT INFORMATION

This appeal is being filed on behalf of Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (“SAFER CA”) and Long Beach residents Nicholas Garcia, Sopha Sum, and Sophall Sum.

All appellants request that the City contact them through their representative, as follows:

Kendra D. Hartmann
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Tel: (650) 589-1660 ext. 21
Fax: (650) 589-5062
Email: [email protected]

However, in order to comply with Municipal Code requirements, we hereby provide the addresses and phone numbers of the individual appellants, as follows:

Nicholas Garcia
6765 Olive Ave.

Long Beach, CA 90805
(323) 855-9730

3 IS/ND, p. 2-4.
4 IS/ND, p. 2-6.

November 5, 2021

4943-012acp

printed on recycled paper
Sopha Sum
4530 E 4th Street Apt. 2d
Long Beach, CA 90814
(562) 522-3091

Sophall Sum
837 Temple Ave. #1
Long Beach, CA 90804
(562) 308-8722

SAFER CA advocates for safe processes at California refineries and fuel transport and distribution facilities to protect the health, safety, standard of life and economic interests of its members. For this reason, SAFER CA has a strong interest in enforcing environmental laws, such as CEQA, which require the disclosure of potential environmental impacts of, and ensure safe operations and processes for, California’s fuel production, storage, and transport projects. Failure to adequately address the environmental impacts of renewable or traditional fuel and other refinery product transport, storage, and refining processes poses a substantial threat to the environment, worker health, surrounding communities and the local economy.

Refineries and fuel transport, storage, and distribution facilities are uniquely dangerous and capable of generating significant fires and the emission of hazardous and toxic substances that adversely impact air quality, water quality, biological resources, and public health and safety. Absent adequate disclosure and mitigation of hazardous materials and processes, refinery and fuel terminal workers and surrounding communities may be subject to chronic health problems and the risk of bodily injury and death. Additionally, rail transport of fuel and other refinery products has been involved in major explosions, causing vast economic damage, significant emissions of air contaminants and carcinogens and, in some cases, severe injuries and fatalities.

SAFER CA supports the sustainable development of fuel resources in California. However, poorly planned refinery and fuel distribution facility projects can adversely impact the economic wellbeing of people who perform construction and maintenance work in refineries, port terminals, fuel distribution facilities, and the surrounding communities. Plant and terminal shutdowns caused by accidental toxic releases and infrastructure breakdowns have caused prolonged work stoppages. Such nuisance conditions and catastrophic events impact local communities and the natural environment and can jeopardize future jobs by November 5, 2021

4943-012acp

printed on recycled paper
making it more difficult and more expensive for businesses to locate and people to live in the area. The participants in SAFER CA are also concerned about projects that carry serious environmental risks and public service infrastructure demands without providing countervailing employment and economic benefits to local workers and communities.

The members represented by the participants in SAFER CA live, work, recreate and raise their families in Los Angeles County, including the City of Long Beach. Accordingly, these people would be directly affected by the Project’s adverse environmental impacts. The members of SAFER CA’s participating unions may also work on the Project itself. They will, therefore, be first in line to be exposed to any hazardous materials, air contaminants, and other health and safety hazards, that exist onsite.

II. GROUNDS AND EVIDENCE FOR APPEAL

We appeal the Board of Harbor Commissioners’ approval of the HDP and IS/ND on the following grounds. The legal and factual grounds, as well as all supporting evidence, are contained in the prior comments submitted by SAFER CA and Dr. Fox, attached as Exhibits A and B, as well as the comments submitted on the Draft IS/ND by other commenters and attached as Exhibit C.

First, the Port failed to comply with CEQA when it failed to respond adequately to the vast majority of the comments we submitted on the Draft IS/ND, as well as failing to respond altogether to nearly all of the comments submitted by our technical expert, Dr. Phyllis Fox.
5 The Port’s responses to Dr. Fox’s comments
failed to address any of the specific, technical evidence she cited and instead simply directed the reader to its responses to comments by other commenters, most of which do not contain the same level of technical detail. Evidence of this egregious failure by the Port to uphold its duty to fully consider public comments can be seen in the attached Staff Report and Responses to Comments.6 Agencies are required to provide “detailed written response to comments . . . to ensure that the lead agency will fully consider the environmental consequences of a decision before it is made,

5 Comments submitted by SAFER CA and Dr. Fox on November 20, 2020 on the Draft IS/ND are attached and incorporated as Exhibit A. Comments submitted by SAFER CA and Dr. Fox on October 28, 2021 in rebuttal to the Port’s responses to earlier comments are attached and incorporated as Exhibit B.
6 For the purposes of this appeal, we adopt and incorporate any and all issues raised in other comments submitted on the Draft IS/ND. The Port’s Responses to Comments, which include all other comments, is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

November 5, 2021

4943-012acp

printed on recycled paper
that the decision is well informed and open to public scrutiny, and the public participation in the environmental review process is meaningful.”7 Comments raising significant environmental issues must be addressed in detail.8 Failure of a lead agency to respond to comments before approving a project frustrates CEQA’s informational purpose, rending an EIR legally inadequate.9 “There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice.”10

Second, the IS/ND is legally inadequate as it failed to provide substantial evidence to support its findings of no significant air quality, public health, and other impacts, as discussed in our comments. Additionally, the Port used flawed methodology in its analyses, resulting in underestimated impacts and unsupported conclusions, including the unsupported conclusion that the Project will have no significant impacts and requires no mitigation. Its conclusions, for example, that operational emissions are insignificant, omit any of the calculations or criteria supporting its conclusions—reviewers are left to accept, categorically and without question, the agency’s conclusory and unsupported statements. An agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.11 The omission of information required by CEQA is a failure to proceed in the manner required by law.12

Third, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant impacts. The IS/ND, therefore, is inappropriate and an EIR must be prepared,13 even if other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion.14 Here, the IS/ND itself provides substantial evidence of significant air quality impacts from Project VOC emissions, which by the Port’s own admission will

7 City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.4th 889, 904. 8 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15088(c).
9 Flanders Found. v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.4th 603, 615; Rural Landowners Ass’n v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.3d 1013, 1020.
10 CEQA Guidelines, § 15088, subd. (c); The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603, 615; see Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1124.
11 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 732. 12 Sierra Club v. State Bd. Of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236. 13 CEQA Guidelines § 15064 subd. (f), (h).
14 See No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.

November 5, 2021

4943-012acp

printed on recycled paper
exceed SCAQMD’s offset threshold for its New Source Review Rule,15 triggering the Air District’s offset requirement. Furthermore, Dr. Fox’s comments provide an abundance of substantial evidence, found in both Exhibits A and B attached to this appeal, supporting fair arguments that the Project will have significant, unmitigated air quality impacts from emissions of construction, operation, fugitive sources, and increased facility capacity, all of which the Port failed to disclose and mitigate, in violation of CEQA.

Fourth, numerous instances can be found throughout the entire IS/ND demonstrating the Port’s deliberate disregard for its legal obligation to comply with CEQA, particularly the aspects of the statute regarding public participation and disclosure of supporting documents. Instead of providing evidence to support its conclusions and to allow the public an opportunity to independently review the Project’s potential impacts, the Port offered conclusory statements in its responses to comments, claiming that it coordinated with SCAQMD, for example, “to ensure that all new piping component fugitive VOC emissions are included in the emissions estimate.”
16 An agency’s assurances that it has “ensured” the accuracy of a project’s estimated impacts ignores the public participation requirement of CEQA.

In another blatant dismissal of its duties under CEQA, the Port relied on hidden studies to revise impact analyses of air quality for the Final IS/ND. Though the Applicant filed a new Permit to Construct/Permit to Operate with the Air District upon which most of the Final IS/ND’s revised conclusions were based, the Port neglected to make the permit application available, yet again precluding any meaningful public review of its analyses. In its evaluation of operational emissions, its revised calculations, using an updated—though still clearly inadequate— modeling software included none of the estimation parameters or other details necessary to evaluate the completeness and accuracy of the calculations. Projects adversely affecting the environment have the potential to impact everyone, and CEQA therefore provides a mechanism by which to scrutinize the work done by lead and responsible agencies, so that all who stand to be affected by a project’s impacts may invest in safeguarding it.

The IS/ND contains several more violations, as outlined in our comment letters, demonstrating that the Port improperly relied on mitigation measures

15 “The facility’s existing potential to emit is above the SCAQMD New Source Review Rule VOC offset threshold of 4 tons per year; therefore, the new tank emissions were required to be offset.” Draft IS/ND, p. 4-9.
16 Id.

November 5, 2021

4943-012acp

printed on recycled paper
disguised as design features in an effort to make impacts appear less significant than they are. Construction emissions, for example, are calculated assuming the use of Tier 4 Final construction equipment—which, as Dr. Fox pointed out, “is universally considered to be mitigation”—before the Port ultimately imposes a “Special Condition” intended to reduce construction emissions, but which it claims is not a mitigation measure. The IS/ND also suggested the use of emission reduction credits (“ERCs”) to offset VOC emissions, disregarding Dr. Fox’s prior comments explaining that ERCs are not valid mitigation. Nevertheless, the IS/ND improperly claims that none of them are mitigation. This is another violation of CEQA, which prohibits the use of mitigation measures disguised as project features.17

A negative declaration is, by definition, a declaration that the Project needs no mitigation because it will not result in any impacts. If any measures are imposed to avoid adverse impacts, even if the agency chooses to call them by another name, their very existence invalidates the preparation of an ND. An EIR must be prepared.

III. ACTION BEING REQUESTED

We respectfully request that the Council overturn the Board’s approval of the Harbor Development Permit and approval of the IS/ND and require that an EIR be prepared in which all Project impacts are 1) properly analyzed using appropriate methodology, 2) in compliance with the disclosure and public participation requirements of CEQA, and 3) fully disclosed and mitigated before being recirculated for the statutorily mandated public review and comment period.

Thank you for your consideration of this appeal. We reserve the right to submit additional comments and evidence to the Council prior to the hearing on this appeal, and in response to any new evidence or staff report prepared by the Port.

S i n c e r e l y ,

K e n d r a H a r t m a n n

Attachments
KDH:acp

17 Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 658.

EXHIBIT A
4943-007acp
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
KENDRA D. HARTMANN*
KYLE C. JONES
RACHAEL E. KOSS

NIRIT LOTAN
WILLIAM C. MUMBY

MARC D. JOSEPH
Of Counsel

*Admitted in Colorado

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0 - 7 0 3 7 ___________

T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2
w m u m b y @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m
printed on recycled paper
November 20, 2020
Via Email & Overnight Mail:

Matthew Arms
Director of Environmental Planning
Port of Long Beach
415 W. Ocean Blvd.

Long Beach, CA 90802
Email:[email protected]
Re: Comments on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for World Oil Tank Installation Project (SCH: 2020100119)
Dear Mr. Arms:

On behalf of Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (“SAFER CA”), we submit these comments on the Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration (“IS/ND”) for the World Oil Tank Installation Project (“Project”)1 prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)2 by the Port of Long Beach (“Port”).

The Project is proposed by Ribost Terminal, LLC dba World Oil Terminals (“Applicant”) and seeks to construct two new 25,000-barrel petroleum storage tanks at the existing World Oil Terminal owned by Applicant located at the Port.3 The terminal is 261,000 square feet (about 6 acres) and contains seven existing petroleum tanks of various sizes totaling a capacity of 502,000 barrels.4 Three tanks contain crude oil and serve World Oil Refinery through the terminal loading rack, while the other four tanks are leased to Marathon Petroleum and

1 Aspen Environmental Group, Draft Negative Declaration/Application Summary Report, World Oil Tank Installation Project (October 2020) (“IS/ND”).
2 Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“C.C.R.”) §§ 15000 et seq. 3 IS/ND, p. 2-1.
4 IS/ND, p. 1.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
Glencore for the purpose of storing fuel oil received and shipped via pipeline.5 The new tanks would be installed in the northwest corner of the existing petroleum bulk station and terminal.6 Construction is estimated to start in January 2021 and last approximately 10 months.7
The two tanks would provide additional storage capacity of petroleum for refining and distribution and could make more existing tanks available for lease by third-party vendors.8 The IS/ND estimates a 10 percent increase in truck trips, as well as an increase in average barrel throughput of fuel oil, but not of crude oil.9 This letter contains the comments of SAFER CA and its technical consultant based on an initial review of the IS/ND and available IS/ND reference documents.

Based on our preliminary review of the IS/ND, we have concluded that it fails to comply with CEQA. The IS/ND suffers from an incomplete and misleading Project description. The Project poses significant impacts to air quality and health risk.

Furthermore, the Project is inconsistent with applicable plans, local regulations, and the California Coastal Act, which preclude the Port from approving the Project as proposed.

These comments were prepared with the assistance of environmental health and air pollution expert Phyllis Fox, Ph.D., P.E. Comments and curriculum vitae of Dr. Fox are attached to this letter as Attachment A.10 Attachment A is fully incorporated herein and submitted to the Port herewith. Therefore, the Port must separately respond to the technical comments in Attachment A.

For the reasons discussed herein, and in the attached expert comments, SAFER CA urges the Port to remedy the deficiencies in the IS/ND by preparing a legally adequate EIR and circulating it for public review and comment.11

5 IS/ND, p. 2-3.
6 IS/ND, p. 2-4.
7 IS/ND, p. 2-6.
8 IS/ND, p. 2-4.
9 IS/ND, p. 2-8.
10 Attachment A: Comments on the Initial Study & Negative Declaration for the World Oil Tank Installation Project by Phyllis Fox (Nov. 20, 2020) (“Fox Comments”). 11 We reserve the right to supplement these comments at later hearings related to this Project. (Gov.

Code § 65009(b); Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199–1203 (explaining exhaustion of administrative remedies under CEQA); see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121 (“As we read section 21177, any alleged grounds for noncompliance with CEQA provisions may be raised by November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
SAFER CA advocates for safe processes at California refineries and fuel transport and distribution facilities to protect the health, safety, standard of life and economic interests of its members. For this reason, SAFER CA has a strong interest in enforcing environmental laws, such as CEQA, which require the disclosure of potential environmental impacts of, and ensure safe operations and processes for, California’s fuel production, storage, and transport projects. Failure to adequately address the environmental impacts of renewable or traditional fuel and other refinery product transport, storage, and refining processes poses a substantial threat to the environment, worker health, surrounding communities and the local economy.

Refineries and fuel transport, storage, and distribution facilities are uniquely dangerous and capable of generating significant fires and the emission of hazardous and toxic substances that adversely impact air quality, water quality, biological resources, and public health and safety. Absent adequate disclosure and mitigation of hazardous materials and processes, refinery and fuel terminal workers and surrounding communities may be subject to chronic health problems and the risk of bodily injury and death. Additionally, rail transport of fuel and other refinery products has been involved in major explosions, causing vast economic damage, significant emissions of air contaminants and carcinogens and, in some cases, severe injuries and fatalities.

SAFER CA supports the sustainable development of fuel resources in California. However, poorly planned refinery and fuel distribution facility projects can adversely impact the economic wellbeing of people who perform construction and maintenance work in refineries, port terminals, fuel distribution facilities, and the surrounding communities. Plant and terminal shutdowns caused by accidental toxic releases and infrastructure breakdowns have caused prolonged work stoppages. Such nuisance conditions and catastrophic events impact local communities and the natural environment and can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for businesses to locate and people to live in the area. The participants in SAFER CA are also concerned about projects that carry serious environmental risks and public service infrastructure demands any person prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.”).)
November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
without providing countervailing employment and economic benefits to local workers and communities.

The members represented by the participants in SAFER CA live, work, recreate and raise their families in Los Angeles County, including the City of Long Beach. Accordingly, these people would be directly affected by the Project’s adverse environmental impacts. The members of SAFER CA’s participating unions may also work on the Project itself. They will, therefore, be first in line to be exposed to any hazardous materials, air contaminants, and other health and safety hazards, that exist onsite.

II. LEGAL BACKGROUND
A. CEQA
CEQA is intended to provide the fullest possible protection to the environment. CEQA requires that a lead agency prepare and certify an EIR for any discretionary project that may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.12 In order to set an accurate foundation for the analysis, an EIR must include a description of the “existing physical conditions in the affected area.”13 CEQA requires analysis of the “whole of an action,” including the “direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.”14 “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.”15

B. An EIR is Required

“At the heart of CEQA is the requirement that public agencies prepare an EIR for any project that may have a significant effect on the environment.”16 A negative declaration is improper, and an EIR must be prepared, whenever it can be

12 Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(a), 21151(a); 14 C.C.R. §§ 15064(a)(1), (f)(1), 15367. 13 Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319– 322; 14 C.C.R. § 15125.
14 Pub. Res. Code § 21065; 14 C.C.R. § 15378(a).
15 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 (internal quotations omitted).
16 Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 944 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact.17 “[S]ignificant effect on the environment” is defined as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.”18 An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.”19 Substantial evidence, for purposes of the fair argument standard, includes “fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact.”20 In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact. Because “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process” by allowing the agency to dispense with the duty to prepare an EIR, negative declarations are allowed only in cases where there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental effect.21

An agency’s decision to rely on a negative declaration under CEQA is reviewed by a court for abuse of discretion under the fair argument standard.22 To determine if there has been an abuse of discretion, a court reviews the agency’s factual conclusions de novo.23
Under the fair argument standard, a reviewing court may not uphold an agency’s decision to not prepare an EIR because of substantial evidence that the project would not have a significant environmental impact.24 The reviewing court’s function is to determine whether substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion as to whether the prescribed fair argument could be made.25 If there is substantial evidence that the proposed project might have a significant impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with

17 Id. at 957.
18 Pub. Res. Code § 21068; 14 C.C.R. § 15382; County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1581.
19 No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83 fn. 16. 20 Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1) (emphasis added); Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 327, 331 (“CREED”). 21 Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440; Pub. Res. Code §§ 21064, 21100.
22 Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 665, 675 (“STACK”). 23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
preparation of an EIR and adopt a negative declaration.26 Neither the lead agency nor a court may “weigh” conflicting substantial evidence to determine whether an EIR must be prepared in the first instance.27 “The fair argument standard thus creates a low threshold for requiring an EIR, reflecting the legislative preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.”28
Where experts have presented conflicting evidence on the extent of the environmental effects of a project, the agency must consider the effects to be significant and prepare an EIR.29 In short, when “expert opinions clash, an EIR should be done.”30 “It is the function of an EIR, not a negative declaration, to resolve conflicting claims, based on substantial evidence, as to the environmental effects of a project.”31 Where substantial evidence is presented, “evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with preparation of an EIR and adopt a negative declaration, because it could be ‘fairly argued’ that the project might have a significant environmental impact.”32

In certain circumstances, a project with potentially significant impacts can be modified by the adoption of mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. In such cases, an agency may satisfy its CEQA obligation by preparing a mitigated negative declaration.33 A mitigated negative declaration, however, is also subject to the fair argument standard. Thus, an MND is also inadequate, and an EIR is required, whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a “fair argument” that significant impacts may occur even with the imposition of mitigation measures.

As described below, substantial evidence is present here that the Project may cause a significant effect on the environment. In particular, these comments show that the Project may result in significant air quality and health risk impacts. Thus, the Port is required under CEQA to take a closer look at the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project in a legally adequate EIR.

26 Id.
27 Id. at 689.
28 Id. at 676.
29 Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 935; Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1317–1318; CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(5). 30 Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928; Sierra Club, 6 Cal.App.4th at 1317–1318. 31 Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 935.
32 Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 310 (citation omitted). 33 Pub. Res. Code § 21064.5; 14 C.C.R. § 15064(f)(2).

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
III. THE IS/ND FAILS TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE AND ACCURATE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CEQA requires that a project be described with enough particularity that its impacts can be assessed.34 Without a complete project description, the environmental analysis under CEQA is impermissibly limited, thus minimizing the project’s impacts and undermining meaningful public review.35 “CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation on government rather than the public. If the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, a fair argument may be based on the limited facts in the record. Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.”36

An IS/ND must present a complete and accurate description of the project under consideration.37 “The scope of the environmental review conducted for the initial study must include the entire project. . . . [A] correct determination of the nature and scope of the project is a critical step in complying with the mandates of CEQA.”38 A negative declaration is “inappropriate where the agency has failed either to provide an accurate project description or to gather information and undertake an adequate environmental analysis. An accurate and complete project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the agency's action. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal . . . and weigh other alternatives in the balance.”39 For purposes of the description, “‘Project’ means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.”40

34 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 403–405. 35 Id.
36 Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 311.
37 See 14 C.C.R. § 15063(d)(1) (requiring an initial study to include a description of the project); City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 406 (explaining that a negative declaration must be supported by a complete and accurate project description). 38 Nelson v. County of Kern (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 252, 267 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
39 Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1171 (quotations and citations omitted).
40 14 C.C.R. § 15378(a).

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
In Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (“CBE v.

Richmond”), the Court of Appeal held that an EIR failed as an informational document because inconsistencies in the project description obscured the degree to which the project would enable the refinery to process heavier crude oil.41 In certain parts of the EIR, it claimed that the project would allow flexibility in refining heavier crude oil, but elsewhere the EIR denied the project would allow heavier crude refining.42 The stark contradictions led the Court to disapprove the EIR because it failed as an informational document under CEQA.43 Here, the IS/ND fails to accurately reflect all potential sources of emissions and therefore does not provide a complete and accurate description of the Project.

Claims in the IS/ND that the Project would “not increase the permitted crude oil throughput for the crude oil loading racks or tanker truck transportation requirements for crude oil” are contradicted by other evidence that suggests a possible increase in crude throughput that could yield an increase in emissions from oil refining.44 The Permits to Construct for each tank have conditions that operator shall limit tank throughput to no more than 75,000 barrels in any given calendar month, without specifying the type of oil.45 The Harbor Development Permit (“HDP”) Application for the Project says that 70,000 barrels of crude/month and 50,000 barrels of fuel oil/month will be stored at the site.46 Moreover, Tables 2-3 and 2-4 of the IS/ND show increases in loading rack truck traffic and the number of barrels of crude oil transported upon Project completion.47 This information contradicts the statement purporting to describe the Project as not affecting the amount of crude oil throughput in the facility.

Indeed, as explained by Dr. Fox, “[a]n increase in storage generally implies an increase in crude oil throughput at the supported refinery and hence, an increase in refinery emissions.”48 The internal inconsistencies in the IS/ND and the

41 Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (“CBE v. Richmond”) (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 89.
42 Id. at 83.
43 Id. at 89.
44 IS/ND, p. 4-7.
45 SCAQMD Permit to Construct for Tank No. TK-1, Application No. 614274, ID 111238 (Jan. 2, 2020); SCAQMD Permit to Construct for Tank No. TK-2, Application No. 614275, ID 111238 (Jan. 2, 2020).
46 Application of Ribost Terminal, LLC for HDP or CEQA Determination, HDP No. 19-066 (Received Aug. 14, 2019) (“HDP Application”), p. 7.
47 IS/ND, p. 2-8.
48 Fox Comments, p. 6.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
contradictory information from supporting permits and applications obfuscates the true nature of the Project’s impacts on crude oil throughput and thereby masks how high emissions related to the Project could be.49
These inconsistencies in the description of crude oil throughput are akin to the contradictions that proved fatal to the EIR in CBE v. Richmond.50 Similar to how the EIR in that case presented divergent visions of the project’s role in allowing refining of heavier crude oil, the IS/ND and its supporting documentation provide a confusing and misleading picture of whether crude oil throughput, and consequently refining emissions, will increase.51 Just as the Court of Appeal held that the EIR failed as an informational document, the IS/ND violates CEQA and must be revised to accurately and consistently describe the Project’s impacts on crude oil production at the Port and how this will influence emissions from the World Oil Refinery.52

In addition, the IS/ND explains that the construction of the new tanks will free up other tanks to be leased to third parties, but it is unclear what third-parties will do with the existing tanks once they are leased out.53 As explained by Dr. Fox, the Project description is inadequate for failing to “disclose information about the future use of the repurposed existing tanks required to estimate the change in emissions from their new use.”54 Depending how these tanks are utilized and what substances are stored in them, they could produce fugitive emissions and feed additional indirect refining emissions if they use heavier crude or other materials requiring more intensive refining.55

Furthermore, Dr. Fox explains that the information provided to the consultant that prepared the IS/ND by the Applicant did not “contain enough information to quantitatively estimate emission increases from operation of the new tanks.”56 “Specifically, the throughput is not known, the specific liquid to be stored is not known, and the effects to ground and marine transportation aren’t known.”57 For the IS/ND to serve its role as an informational document under CEQA, the

49 Fox Comments, p. 6.
50 CBE v. Richmond, 184 Cal.App.4th at 83, 89.
51 Id.
52 Id. at 89.
53 IS/ND, pp. 2-1, 4-3.
54 Fox Comments, p. 2.
55 Fox Comments, pp. 2, 6–7, 23, 28.
56 Fox Comments, p. 6.
57 Fox Comments, pp. 6–7.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
Project description must provide more information regarding how the Project may influence operational emissions.

IV. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT

THE PROJECT MAY RESULT IN POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AIR

QUALITY IMPACTS

An agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.58 The failure to provide information required by CEQA is a failure to proceed in the manner required by law.59

As explained below, the IS/ND fails to acknowledge potentially significant air quality impacts likely to stem from the Project. Therefore, the Port’s conclusions that there will be no significant environmental impacts are unsupported and there is a fair argument of significant impacts requiring preparation of an EIR.

A. There is Substantial Evidence Supporting a Fair Argument that the Project Will Produce Significant Levels of
Construction Emissions Which the IS/ND Fails to Disclose

The IS/ND concludes that construction emissions will be less than significant.60 However, the Port reaches this determination using CalEEMod modeling that assumes the use of Tier Final 4 engines, the most stringent low- emission construction equipment available, without a binding commitment to use this equipment for the Project and without disclosing how high emissions would be if less efficient equipment is used.61 As a result, the IS/ND discloses only mitigated construction emissions, and does not disclose unmitigated emissions, in violation of CEQA.

Under CEQA, it is improper to attempt to disguise mitigation measures as part of the project’s design if this obfuscates the potential significance of 58 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 732. 59 Sierra Club v. State Bd. Of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236. 60 IS/ND, pp. 4-8–4-9.
61 Pages 1 and 13 of the document “20180914_RIBOST_CalEEMod_ALL_ATT 1.PDF” provided to us by the Port in response to our records requests state that the Port requires Tier 4 engines for off-road equipment, but the CalEEMod Air Quality Analysis in Appendix A of the IS/ND contains no such language.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
environmental impacts.62 In Lotus v. Department of Transportation, an EIR prepared by the California Department of Transportation (“CalTrans”) contained measures to help minimize potential stress on redwood trees during highway construction, such as restorative planting, invasive plant removal, watering, and use of an arborist and specialized excavation equipment.63 The Court of Appeal held that the EIR improperly compressed the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue because the EIR did not designate the measures as mitigation and concluded that because of the measures, no significant impacts were anticipated.64 The Court explained that a significance determination must be made independent of mitigation first, then mitigation can be incorporated, and the effectiveness of those measures can be evaluated.65 “Absent a determination regarding the significance of the impacts to the root systems of the old growth redwood trees, it is impossible to determine whether mitigation measures are required or to evaluate whether other more effective measures than those proposed should be considered.”66

By contrast, in Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure, the Court of Appeal distinguished Lotus and held that certain project features are inherent in the project design and need not be identified as mitigation measures.67 Petitioners had challenged certification of an EIR for a basketball arena, arguing in part that inclusion of a special event transit service plan (“TSP”) as part of the Transportation Management Plan (“TMP”) without calling it a transportation mitigation measure precluded consideration of alternative feasible mitigation measures.68 According to the Court of Appeal, the characterization of the TSP as part of the project rather than as a mitigation measure did not interfere with the identification of significant impacts or analysis of measures to mitigate those consequences, as was the case in Lotus.69 “Unlike the situation in Lotus, the environmental impacts of the project on vehicle traffic and

62 Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 658 (compression of mitigation measures into project design without acknowledging potentially significant impact if effects were not mitigated violates CEQA)
63 Id. at 650.
64 Id. at 656.
65 Id. at 654–656.
66 Id. at 656.
67 Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 185.
68 Id. at 184.
69 Id. at 185.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
transit are fully disclosed in the FSEIR.”70 Because the FSEIR included analysis of transit impacts both with and without the TSP, the FSEIR was upheld.71 Here, the IS/ND assumes the use of lower-emitting Tier 4 Final engines for the Project’s construction equipment without explicitly committing to using this equipment for the Project or disclosing how high emissions would be in the absence of the equipment.72 Unlike port cargo handling equipment, which was required to meet Tier 4 Final standards by December 2017,73 Tier 4 construction equipment is not currently mandated for 100 percent of construction use. Rather, Tier 4 equipment (interim and final) is required to be phased into to all California construction fleets over several years pursuant to EPA’s “Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel; Final Rule.”74 Tier 1 engines will not be fully phased out until 2029; Tier 2 and Tier 3 engines may remain in use in limited supply even after 2029.75

As Dr. Fox explains, without specific requirements in the CEQA document for the engine tier for all construction equipment stated in the IS/ND, the Applicant is “free to use the cheapest, highest emitting, Tier 1 equipment to build the Project.”76 Given that Tier 1 construction equipment would yield much higher levels of pollution than Tier 4 equipment, with NOx emissions increased 35 times and PM10 emissions increased 15 times compared to Tier 4 equipment, it is improper for the Port to fail to disclose the likely significant levels of unmitigated emissions.77 In fact, assuming the Applicant uses Tier 1 equipment instead of Tier 4, NOx emissions

70Id.
71 Id.
72 Fox Comments, pp. 3–4; pages 1 and 13 of the document “20180914_RIBOST_CalEEMod_ALL_ATT 1.PDF” provided to us by the Port in response to our records requests state that the Port requires Tier 4 engines for off-road equipment, but the CalEEMod Air Quality Analysis in Appendix A of the IS/ND contains no such language. 73 13 C.C.R. § 2479(e).
74 Vol. 69, No. 124 Fed. Reg. pp. 38957–39273, June 29, 2004; 13 C.C.R. § 2423 (Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures - Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines); see CARB In-Use Off- Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation Overview, Revised October 2016 (“CARB Off-Road Fact Sheet”), available at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/faq/overview_fact_sheet_dec_2010- final.pdf (last visited 11/20/20).
75 CARB Off-Road Fact Sheet, pp. 5–7.
76 Fox Comments, pp. 2–4.
77 Fox Comments, pp. 2–4.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
would be a whopping 1060.5 lb/day, well in excess of the significance threshold of 100 lb/day.78
By failing to make a significance determination about air quality impacts independent of mitigation before incorporating emissions reductions measures into the calculations, the IS/ND commits the same fatal error critiqued by the Court of Appeal in Lotus. Just as use of specialized equipment and practices to limit impacts to the roots of redwood trees should have been classified as mitigation measures, not design features in Lotus, the use of off-road construction equipment with Tier 4 engines and other best practices to reduce emissions are mitigation measures that should have been acknowledged as such in the IS/ND.79 The Port’s failure to acknowledge the higher levels of construction emissions without the mitigation measures obscures the significance of air quality impacts and prevents the public from properly evaluating the effectiveness of the mitigation measures proposed.80

The Port cannot plausibly claim the choice of construction equipment and practices are inherent features of project design as was done in Mission Bay. As explained above, specialized equipment and mitigating practices are more analogous to the measures deemed mitigation measures in Lotus than they are to the TSP in Mission Bay, which was a plan to handle traffic during special events, an inherent feature of a sports arena.81 Moreover, the agency in Mission Bay fully disclosed transit impacts in its CEQA document so there were no issues in comprehending the significance of impacts.82 Here, not only did the IS/ND fail to disclose the level of construction emissions in the absence of cleaner equipment, it failed to even clearly reveal its intentions to use such equipment in its discussion of air quality impacts from construction.

Furthermore, while the HDP Application suggests that Tier 4 engines will be used for construction equipment, there is no commitment to do so in the IS/ND in the form of a legally binding mitigation measure.83 In fact, the term “Tier 4” does not appear in the IS/ND at all, so it is improper to assume emissions reductions from construction equipment with cleaner engines. As Dr. Fox explains, the

78 Fox Comments, p. 4. Dr. Fox multiplied the 30.3 lb/day calculated in the IS/ND by 35 to show how much the use of dirtier equipment could impact the emissions levels from construction. (Id.) 79 Lotus, 223 Cal.App.4th at 650, 654–656.
80 Id. at 654–656.
81 Mission Bay, 6 Cal.App.5th at 184.
82 Id. at 185.
83 HDP Application, p. 3.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
Applicant has a financial incentive to use cheaper, higher polluting equipment, so if there is no compulsory condition of Project approval that construction will occur using Tier 4 equipment or other equipment with retrofits with similarly effective emissions controls, it is not reasonable to assume the emissions reductions will occur.84

The IS/ND’s reliance on Tier 4 Final equipment in the CalEEMod modeling without demonstrating feasibility and including it as a binding mitigation measures violates key principles of CEQA that mitigation measures be both effective and enforceable through legally binding instruments.85 An EIR must be prepared to disclose the Project’s unmitigated construction emissions and incorporate effective and binding mitigation measures into the Project to reduce construction emissions impacts to below significant impacts,.

B. There is Substantial Evidence Supporting a Fair Argument that the Project Will Produce Significant Levels of Operational VOC Emissions

Dr. Fox shows that there will be potentially significant impacts from VOC emissions by pointing to several major problems with the IS/ND’s VOC emissions analysis, including inaccurate modeling, an incorrect significance threshold, failure to include all emissions sources, and improper mitigation.86

i. The IS/ND’s Reliance on the U.S. EPA TANKS Program
Model Yields Underestimated VOC Emissions

Dr. Fox discusses numerous studies demonstrating that the U.S. EPA TANKS Program model used to calculate fugitive VOC emissions from oil tanks consistently and substantially underestimates these emissions.87 In particular, the TANKS model does not accommodate tanks that receive warmer-than-ambient stock—which potentially includes the Project—and do not accurately capture variations in vapor pressure or fugitive emissions from internal floating roof tanks, or decreased tank performance.88 Dr. Fox explains that the TANKS 4.09 model

84 Fox Comments, pp. 2–4.
85 14 C.C.R. § 15126.4(a)(2); Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727–728.
86 Fox Comments, pp. 5–6.
87 Fox Comments, pp. 6–17.
88 Fox Comments, pp. 6–7.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
used by the Applicant is based on algorithms developed by the American Petroleum Institute for “ideal new installations,” and does not account for variations during operation or degradations in tank performance which occur over time.89 For these reasons, the TANKS model is recognized as unreliable and U.S.

EPA no longer recommends using it to calculate tank emissions.90 Its website includes a disclaimer that the software supporting the TANKS model is now outdated and the model should only be used “at your own risk.”91 Dr. Fox explains that the FluxSense Report, study of refinery tank emissions commissioned by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), concluded that VOC emissions were underestimated by an average factor of 6.2, compared to emissions levels reported to SCAQMD in emissions inventories.92 Studies of floating roof tanks, which as proposed for the Project, found VOC emissions underestimated by a factor of 121.93 Some other studies have shown that TANKS can underestimate VOC emissions by as much as a factor of 132.94

Applying these well-supported underestimation factors as a multiplier to the IS/ND’s estimate of 9.7 lb/day of VOC emissions yields significant levels of emissions. Dr. Fox initially selected an underestimation factor of 67—a midpoint in the range of factors uncovered by various studies—and calculated that VOC emissions from the Project would be about 650 lb/day.95 Assuming an underestimation by a factor of 121, as occurred in studies of internal floating roof tanks, as proposed for the Project, the VOC emissions would reach 1,174 lb/day.96 Finally, “even assuming a more modest underestimation factor of 6.2—the average factor found by the FluxSense study commissioned by SCAQMD—VOC emissions from the tanks would be 60 lb/day.”97 All three of these emissions levels exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 55 lb/day for operational VOC emissions.98

89 Fox Comments, p. 8.
90 Fox Comments, pp. 6–8.
91 EPA, TANKS Emissions Estimation Software, Version 4.09D; https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ software/tanks/.
92 Fox Comments, pp. 16–17.
93 Fox Comments, pp. 10–11.
94 Fox Comments, pp. 9–10.
95 Fox Comments, pp. 17–18.
96 Fox Comments, p. 18.
97 Fox Comments, p. 18.
98 Fox Comments, p. 18. Dr. Fox notes that the IS/ND incorrectly uses a threshold of 75 lb/day, which is the threshold for VOC construction emissions, not operational emissions. (Id.; IS/ND, p. 4-10; November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
Therefore, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that VOC emissions from the tanks will be highly significant, which the IS/ND fails to disclose or mitigate. The Port must prepare an EIR to accurately analyze and mitigate these significant air quality impacts.

ii. The IS/ND Omits Numerous Sources of VOC Emissions
and Fails to Consider Indirect Emissions

In addition to the serious underestimation of emissions from reliance on the TANKS model, numerous sources of VOC emissions from the Project were not even included in the model and were not otherwise disclosed in the IS/ND. As a result, VOC emissions are likely to be even more significant than explained above. The omitted sources of emissions include roof landing, degassing, cleaning, water draw, truck loading rack disconnect, and valve and connector leaks.99

As Dr. Fox explains, the Project will use two internal floating roof storage tanks, meaning that the roofs of the tanks will float on the surface of the liquid inside the tank.100 Evaporative losses can occur when the contents of the tank reach the level where the roof sits on deck legs near the bottom of the tank.101 These losses occur when the floating roof has landed on the deck legs and stands idle while oil vapor is lost through a breather vent.102 Losses also occur through the breather vent while the tank is being refilled until the liquid in the tank rises to the level of the roof being refloated on the liquid’s surface.103

Dr. Fox explains that the TANKS model does not account for roof landings and the IS/ND did not conduct any supplemental analysis to calculate these additional sources of VOC emissions.104 Given that roof landing losses “are large typically comprising about a quarter . . . of total tank emissions,” the omission of analysis of these evaporative losses seriously undermines the IS/ND’s VOC emissions analysis.105

SCAQMD, South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/ default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf.) 99 Fox Comments, pp. 18–23.
100 Fox Comments, pp. 18–20.
101 Fox Comments, pp. 18–20.
102 Fox Comments, pp. 18–20.
103 Fox Comments, pp. 18–20.
104 Fox Comments, pp. 20–21.
105 Fox Comments, p. 21.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
Losses in the form of VOC emissions also occur during tank inspection and cleaning. Dr. Fox explains that degassing and cleaning losses are “essentially uncontrolled tank emissions and can be larger than normal operating emissions.”106 The IS/ND fails to disclose these emissions and does not commit to any special degassing equipment during tank cleaning that could help reduce these emissions.107

In addition, Dr. Fox explains that crude oil storage facilities typically have a filtration system to remove water that accumulates in the crude oil.108 This water draw is often transferred from the storage tanks into a smaller water draw surge tank for processing prior to disposal.109 However, over time, layers of crude oil can form in the water draw surge tank which then emits VOCs and other hazardous air pollutants.110 Because the IS/ND does not disclose or estimate emissions from any of these sources—in addition to probable leaks in valves or during loading or unloading of the tanks—the IS/ND greatly underestimates emissions and fails as an informational document under CEQA.111

The IS/ND also omitted emissions from repurposed tanks, which will be leased out to third parties. As explained with respect to the inadequate Project description, the IS/ND fails to consider indirect emissions resulting from potential changes to management of the repurposed tanks and the expansion of crude oil storage that would likely impact emissions from the World Oil Refinery.

There is more than a fair argument all these aggregated omissions of emission sources combined with the underestimation from TANKS modeling yields a highly significant air quality impact from VOC emissions. The Port must prepare an EIR which discloses these impacts, and provides specific mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

106 Fox Comments, p. 22.
107 Fox Comments, p. 22.
108 Fox Comments, p. 23.
109 Fox Comments, p. 23.
110 Fox Comments, p. 23.
111 Fox Comments, p. 23.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
iii. The IS/ND Improperly Relies on Emissions Offsets to Reduce VOC Emissions
As explained above, there is a fair argument that VOC emissions from the Project will be highly significant. The IS/ND claims to address VOC emissions with emissions reduction credits (“ERC”).112 There are two problems with this approach.

First, the offsets are intended to reduce the impacts of the Project’s VOC emissions due to exceedances of SCAQMD’s New Source Review Rule. As the IS/ND explains, “[t]he facility’s existing potential to emit is above the SCAQMD New Source Review Rule VOC offset threshold of 4 tons per year; therefore, the new tank emissions were required to be offset.”113 VOC emissions from the Project’s new tanks will exacerbate the existing potential for excess VOC emissions and further exceed SCAQMD’s offset threshold, resulting in a significant impact.114 The ERCs for the Project are proposed as mitigation to address the impact. Mitigation cannot be included in an IS/ND. The Port must include any proposed mitigation to reduce VOC emissions in an EIR.

Second, emissions offsets such as this are not valid mitigation for VOC emissions under CEQA and could not be claimed as mitigation in a revised CEQA document.115 Dr. Fox explains that historically banked ERCs only reflect emissions reductions in the past and do nothing to reduce emissions at the time and location where the air quality impacts are occurring.116 Thus, ERCs are more appropriately considered part of the existing baseline of air quality conditions in the region.117 Project emissions in the near future, regardless of whether they are covered by historically banked ERCs, constitute a deviation from that baseline and an exacerbation of existing air pollution.

Here, the ERCs proposed to offset VOC emissions were issued December 14, 1993, 27 years ago.118 Consequently, relying on the ERCs does nothing to actually mitigate the serious air quality concerns in the region in the present day.119 VOC

112 See IS/ND, p. 4-8–4-9, Table 4.3-1 .
113 IS/ND, p. 4-9.
114 14 C.C.R. § 15126.2(a).
115 IS/ND, p. 4-9, Table 4.3-2; Fox Comments, p. 23.
116 Fox Comments, pp. 23–24.
117 Fox Comments, pp. 23–24.
118 SCAQMD, Certificate of Proof for Registered Emission Reduction Credit, Certificate No.

AQ001032, Reissued to Ribost Terminal, LLC, Issued December 5, 2019. 119 Fox Comments, pp. 23–24.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
emissions will increase in the Project area and currently nothing will be done to reduce those impacts.120 CEQA prohibits reliance on ineffective mitigation measures such as the ERCs proposed in the IS/ND.121
Therefore, even with ERCs, the VOC emissions from the Project would still be significant when they are adjusted for all the flaws identified by Dr. Fox above.

Even if adequate and effective mitigation could be adopted, a mitigated negative declaration would be necessary to comply with CEQA in lieu of the IS/ND. In the absence of mitigation, an EIR is required.

V. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT

THE PROJECT WILL PRODUCE CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE

AIR QUALITY IMPACTS

CEQA requires analysis of cumulative impacts, defined as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable.”122 Such impacts may “result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.”123 Cumulatively considerable means that “the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”124

CEQA Guidelines section 15130(b)(1) provides two options for analyzing cumulative impacts: (A) list “past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or” (B) summarize “projection contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect.”125 “When relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project's

120 Fox Comments, pp. 23–24.
121Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727–728. 122 14 C.C.R. § 15355.
123 14 C.C.R. § 15355(b).
124 14 C.C.R. § 15064(h)(1).
125 14 C.C.R. § 15130(b)(1).

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.”126
In Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (“CBE v. CRA”), the Court of Appeal rejected now nonexistent provisions of the CEQA Guidelines that allowed agencies to dismiss the potential for cumulative impacts if the Project’s contribution to a cumulative problem was “de minimis.”127 The case relied heavily on Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford to conclude that even individually minor contributions to an environmental problem can produce cumulatively considerable impacts requiring careful analysis under CEQA.128 As a result, controlling CEQA law was inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15064(i)(4) and 15130(a)(4) as they existed at the time because “they measure a proposed project’s de minimis incremental impact relative to the existing cumulative impact, rather than focus on the combined effects of these impacts.”129

In Kings County Farm Bureau, the City of Hanford prepared an EIR for a

26.4-megawatt coal-fired cogeneration plant.130 Notwithstanding the fact that the EIR found that the project region was out of attainment for PM10 and ozone, the City failed to incorporate mitigations for the project’s cumulative air quality impacts from project emissions because it concluded that the Project would contribute “less than one percent of area emissions for all criteria pollutants.”131 The Court held that it was an error for the City to not take into account the nonattainment with air quality standards.132 Regarding ozone, the Court reasoned that “[t]he relevant question to be addressed in the EIR is not the relative amount of [ozone] precursors emitted by the project when compared with preexisting emissions, but whether any additional amount of precursor emissions should be considered significant in light of the serious nature of the ozone problems in this air basin.”133 In addition, the Court generally held that the EIR improperly sidestepped

126Id.; see id. § 15130(a) (stating that the lead agency shall describe its basis for concluding that an incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable).
127Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (“CBE v. CRA”) (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 121, disapproved of on other grounds in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1098.
128Id. at 118–121.
129Id. at 121.
130Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 706. 131Id. at 719.
132Id. at 718–721.
133Id. at 718.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
the cumulative impacts analysis when it “focused on the individual project’s relative effects and omitted facts relevant to an analysis of the collective effect this and other sources will have upon air quality.”134
The IS/ND fails to conduct a proper cumulative air quality impacts analysis as it does not list “past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts” or explain compliance with a local, regional, or statewide plan that would ensure that air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, as required by CEQA.135 Rather, the IS/ND cursorily claims that the Project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts because of “the relatively nominal level and area of impact, highly developed industrial surroundings, and temporary nature of the proposed project.”136

This justification is strikingly similar to the “de minimis” approach to cumulative impacts analysis that the Court of Appeal rejected in CBE v. CRA.137 The provision of the CEQA Guidelines that permitted agencies to conclude air emissions would be cumulatively insignificant because they are small in the grand scheme of things has been struck down by the Courts. Indeed, as was recognized in CBE v. CRA and Kings County Farm Bureau, the relevant analysis is not the relative amount of emissions from the Project compared with other emissions, but “whether any additional amount of precursor emissions should be considered significant in light of the serious nature of the ozone problems in this air basin.”138 Just as the City of Hanford violated CEQA when it did not consider nonattainment with air quality standards, the Port has violated CEQA by fixating on the individually small amount of emissions it claims are attributable to the Project without evaluating the existing air quality problems and the collective effect of this Project and other nearby projects on these issues.139

In any event, Dr. Fox explains that SCAQMD’s own cumulative impact guidance says that cumulative impacts are considerable where a project’s individual emissions exceed significance thresholds.140 SCAQMD’s guidance also specifically 134Id. at 721.
135 14 C.C.R. § 15130(b)(1).
136 IS/ND, p. 4-65.
137CBE v. CRA, 103 Cal.App.4th at 121.
138Id. at 118–121; Kings County Farm Bureau, 221 Cal.App.3d at 718. 139Kings County Farm Bureau, 221 Cal.App.3d at 718–721. 140 Fox Comments, p. 28.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
rejects the de minimus approach.141 Dr. Fox has made a fair argument that VOC emissions will exceed SCAQMD’s operational emissions significance threshold.142 Therefore, cumulative impacts are significant and an EIR must be prepared.143 Furthermore, the South Coast Air Basin is in extreme nonattainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 1-hour and 8-hour ozone and in nonattainment for California Ambient Air Quality Standards for both types of ozone as well.144 Dr. Fox explains that zip code 90802, where the Project is located, has the highest levels of ozone pollution in the country.145 In fact, the Los Angeles-Long Beach area has topped the American Lung Association’s (“ALA”) worst ozone pollution list for 20 out of the 21 years in its annual State of the Air Report.146 Ozone pollution has serious health effects, especially for children and teens, anyone 65 or older, people with existing lung diseases, or people who frequently work or exercise outdoors.147 ALA estimates that, in 2020, 10 million people with pre- existing conditions were at risk from ozone pollution in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area, plus another 15 million otherwise sensitive individuals.148 Dr. Fox further details in her comments serious public health impacts of ozone, including premature death, developmental harm, reproductive harm, lung irritation, asthma, increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, and cardiovascular harm.149

141 SCAQMD, White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution, Appendix D – Cumulative Impact Analysis Requirements Pursuant to CEQA, August 2003, p. D-2, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Environmental- Justice/cumulative-impacts-working-group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper-appendix.pdf (last visited 11/20/20.
142 Fox Comments, p. 28.
143 Fox Comments, p. 28.
144 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqs- caaqs-feb2016.pdf
145 Fox Comments, p. 30; American Lung Association, State of the Air (2020), p. 22, available at https://www.stateoftheair.org/assets/SOTA-2020.pdf; see also https://www.stateoftheair.org/city- rankings/most-polluted-cities.html (ranking of most polluted cities); https://www.stateoftheair.org/city-rankings/states/california/los-angeles.html (annual weighted average number of high ozone days in the Los Angeles area). 146 American Lung Association, State of the Air (2020), p. 7, available at https://www.stateoftheair.org/assets/SOTA-2020.pdf.
147 Fox Comments, pp. 30–33.
148 Fox Comments, pp. 30–33.
149 Fox Comments, pp. 30–33.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
Underestimated VOC and NOx emissions could yield cumulatively considerable air quality impacts because they are ozone precursor emissions that react in the presence of sunlight to produce even more ozone and exacerbate already dangerous ozone pollution in the region.150 Analysis of cumulative effects of precursor emissions is particularly critical given the close proximity of residences, elementary schools, and parks to the Project site.151 To comply with CEQA, the Port’s cumulative impacts analysis must draw the connection between individually small emissions and potentially considerable collective impacts.

Dr. Fox considered a variety of other nearby projects and concluded that the cumulative air quality impacts appear highly significant. The Los Angeles International Airport (“LAX”) expansion projects—including terminal upgrades, runaway rehabilitation, bus yard and other transit construction, various water pipelines, and other miscellaneous improvements—is estimated to produce significant air quality impacts on its own.152 Given that the Project and the LAX projects will both occur in the South Coast Air Basin, the Port should have considered the cumulative air quality impacts of these Projects on regional air quality. The failure to do so renders the IS/ND’s air quality analysis deficient.

There is a fair argument of cumulatively considerable air quality impacts requiring the preparation of an EIR.

VI. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT

THE PROJECT MAY RESULT IN POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT

HEALTH RISK IMPACTS

A lead agency’s significance determination must be supported by accurate scientific and factual data.153 An agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.154

These standards apply to an agency’s analysis of public health impacts of a project under CEQA. In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, the California Supreme Court affirmed CEQA’s mandate to protect public health and safety by holding that

150 Fox Comments, p. 29.
151 Fox Comments, p. 31.
152 Fox Comments, p. 28.
153 14 C.C.R. § 15064(b).
154Kings County Farm Bureau, 221 Cal.App.3d at 732.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
an EIR fails as an informational document when it fails to disclose the public health impacts from air pollutants that would be generated by a development project.155 In Sierra Club, the Supreme Court held that the EIR for the Friant Ranch Project—a 942-acre master-planned, mixed-use development with 2,500 senior residential units, 250,000 square feet of commercial space, and open space on former agricultural land in north central Fresno County—was deficient as a matter of law in its informational discussion of air quality impacts as they connect to adverse human health effects.156 As the Court explained, “a sufficient discussion of significant impacts requires not merely a determination of whether an impact is significant, but some effort to explain the nature and magnitude of the impact.”157 The Court concluded that the County’s EIR was inadequate for failing to disclose the nature and extent of public health impacts caused by the project’s air pollution.

As the Court explained, the EIR failed to comply with CEQA because after reading the EIR, “the public would have no idea of the health consequences that result when more pollutants are added to a nonattainment basin.”158 CEQA mandates discussion, supported by substantial evidence, of the nature and magnitude of impacts of air pollution on public health.159
Furthermore, in Berkeley Jets, the Court of Appeal held that a CEQA document must analyze the impacts from human exposure to toxic substances.160 In that case, the Port of Oakland approved a development plan for the Oakland International Airport.161 The EIR admitted that the Project would result in an increase in the release of toxic air contaminants (“TACs”) and adopted mitigation measures to reduce TAC emissions, but failed to quantify the severity of the Project’s impacts on human health.162 The Court held that mitigation alone was

155Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 518–522.
156Id. at 507–508, 518–522.
157Id. at 519, citing Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 514–515.
158Id. at 518. CEQA’s statutory scheme and legislative intent also include an express mandate that agencies analyze human health impacts and determine whether the “environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.” (Public Resources Code § 21083(b)(3) (emphasis added).) Moreover, CEQA directs agencies to “take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being reached.” (Public Resources Code § 21000(d) (emphasis added).) 159Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 518–522.
160Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1369–1371.
161Id. at 1349–1350.
162Id. at 1364–1371.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
insufficient, and that the Port had a duty to analyze the health risks associated with exposure to TACs.163 As the CEQA Guidelines explain, “[t]he EIR serves not only to protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected.”164
The IS/ND discusses a screening health risk assessment (“HRA”) done for construction DPM emissions and SCAQMD’s operational HRA conducted for TACs and concluded that the combined health risk would be “well below the SCAQMD health risk CEQA significance thresholds.”165 Relying on the SCAQMD HRA, the IS/ND concluded that cancer risk at the closest residential receptor from TAC emissions from the tanks was 1.85 x 10-7 or 0.185 in one million.166 While the IS/ND provides the results of those analyses, the actual modeling was not provided with the IS/ND and had to be obtained separately from the Port in response to our public record requests for documents referenced under CEQA, rendering the IS/ND legally deficient in addition to being factually inaccurate.167

Moreover, as explained by Dr. Fox, the HRA underestimates the degree of health risk posed by the Project in several ways. VOC emissions are underestimated, which by extension means that emissions of hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”)/TACs are also underestimated.168 Assuming VOC emissions were underestimated by a factor of 121 would yield a cancer risk of 22 in one million, which exceeds the significance threshold of 10 in one million.169 Assuming that VOC emissions were underestimated by a factor of 67 would yield an estimated cancer risk of about 12 in one million, also a significant impact.170

Dr. Fox further explains that the FluxSense Report concluded that benzene emissions (a TAC/HAP) were underestimated by an average factor of 34.171 Assuming increased benzene emissions coupled with VOC emissions

163Id.
164 14 C.C.R. § 15003(b).
165 IS/ND, pp. 4-10–4-12.
166 IS/ND, p. 4-12
167 See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 442 (“information scattered here and there in EIR appendices or a report buried in an appendix is not a substitute for a good faith reasoned analysis.”), citing California Oak, 133 Cal.App.4th at 1239 (internal quotations omitted).
168 Fox Comments, p. 24.
169 Fox Comments, pp. 25–26.
170 Fox Comments, pp. 25–26.
171 Fox Comments, pp. 25–26.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
underestimated by a factor of 121 yields a highly significant 810 in one million cancer risk.172
These significant health impacts are currently undisclosed and warrant deeper analysis in an EIR. Indeed, the failure to analyze the substantial health risks from VOC and benzene emissions commit the same mistakes as the EIRs in Sierra Club and Berkeley Jets. As with the County of Fresno in Sierra Club, the Port here failed to evaluate the full nature and magnitude of the health impact of air pollution associated with the Project.173 CEQA requires a discussion of the health consequences of the Project to properly inform the public of significant impacts.174
Furthermore, just as the Port of Oakland in Berkeley Jets could not get away with its failure to quantify the severity of the impacts of TACs on human health, the Port here cannot neglect to fully and accurately analyze the impacts of VOCs and benzene emissions on the health of nearby receptors.175 The Port here did not even acknowledge the significance of these emissions or attempt to mitigate them, meaning that the Port here has committed an even more egregious violation of CEQA.176

The IS/ND also failed to accurately evaluate impacts to all the sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project.177 Dr. Fox explains that the Permit To Construct Application which contains the HRA relied on by the IS/ND assumed the closest residential receptor was about 925 meters or 0.6 miles away.178 However, the IS/ND indicates the nearest residence is 0.5 miles away.179 Furthermore, Dr. Fox explains that while the IS/ND identified elementary school receptors near the Project site, her search revealed additional undisclosed receptors that could be at risk from the Project’s emissions such as Golden Park, Cesar E. Chavez Park, Drake Park, Drake Park Soccer Field, Edison Child Development Center, and numerous

172 Fox Comments, pp. 25–26.
173Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 518–522.
174Id.
175Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1364–1371.
176Id.
177 Fox Comments, pp. 25, 31.
178 Fox Comments, p. 25.
179 IS/ND, p. 4-10.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
additional homes.180 These errors and omissions undermine the reliability of the IS/ND’s HRA and require an updated analysis to comply with CEQA.

In addition, the HRA failed to evaluate health impacts from increases in ozone concentrations in the vicinity of the Project due to increases in emissions of VOCs and other ozone precursors.181 Especially when considered in light of other nearby emitting projects and the serious ozone pollution problems in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area, as discussed above, this omission results in a serious underestimation of health risk.182 As Dr. Fox explains, recent EIRs, including two in the South Coast Air Basin, have assessed the human health impacts from significant emissions of ozone precursors, meaning that the Port has no excuse to do so here.183

This is again like the situation in Sierra Club, where a failure to make an effort to connect the dots between the project pollution, poor existing air quality, and public health of local community rendered the EIR deficient as an informational document under CEQA.184 The IS/ND echoes those flaws by turning a blind eye to its contributions to the air basin’s severe ozone problem and the repercussions this has for public health. Dr. Fox’s analysis constitutes evidence supporting a fair argument of significant health risk impacts to nearby residents.

Unless the Port commits to adequate mitigation, an EIR must be prepared.

VII. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT

THE PROJECT MAY PRODUCE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT

LAND USE IMPACTS

Under CEQA, a significant environmental impact results if there is a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.185 Under State Planning and Zoning Law, a project cannot be found consistent with a general plan if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is “fundamental, mandatory, and clear,” regardless of whether it is

180 Fox Comments, p. 31.
181 Fox Comments, p. 24.
182 Fox Comments, pp. 29–33.
183 Fox Comments, p. 32.
184Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 518–522.
185Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 783–784 (Project’s inconsistencies with local plans and policies constitute significant impacts under CEQA).

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
consistent with other general plan policies.186 Any subordinate land use action that is not consistent with a city’s general plan is similarly “invalid at the time it is passed.”187 This consistency requirement applies to permits because “the validity of the permit process derives from compliance with this hierarchy of planning laws.”188 “[A] building permit for a proposed project may not be approved unless it complies with . . . the general plan.”189

The Harbor Development Permit (“HDP”) required for this Project is a combination of a Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) required under the California Coastal Act and a building permit.190 Therefore, the consistency requirement for subordinate land use actions like approval of a building permit applies to the HDP sought for this Project.191 The potential for significant environmental impacts discussed above renders the Project inconsistent with the City’s General Plan and the Port’s Master Plan such that the Port must address these impacts before it may approve it.

A. The Project is Inconsistent with the City’s General Plan

The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan says that it is a policy of the City to work with California, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, and other agencies and organizations to improve air quality around the ports and reduce vessel, truck, rail and other equipment emissions from Port operations.192

As demonstrated above, absent effective mitigation the Project will produce significant construction and operational emissions and contribute to severe cumulative impacts on air quality in a region that already suffers from the worst ozone pollution in the country. Relatedly, these emissions will drive significant increases in health risk to local residences, schools, and parks. Because the Port is

186Id. at 782–783; see also Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Bd. of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1341–1342 (holding that project was clearly inconsistent with fundamental policy within land-use element of Draft General Plan). 187Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 544; see Gov. Code § 65860 (requiring consistency with general plan).
188Neighborhood Action Group for the Fifth District v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1184.
189Collier v. City & County of San Francisco (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1341. 190 Port of Long Beach, Draft Port Master Plan Update 2020 (July 2019), p. 8-1. 191 See Collier v. City & County of San Francisco (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1341 (“[A] building permit for a proposed project may not be approved unless it complies with . . . the general plan.”) 192 General Plan, p. 121 (LU Policy 16-4).

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
failing in its duty to grapple with air quality and related health impacts of this Project, the Project runs afoul of the General Plan.

B.The Project is Inconsistent with the Port’s Master Plan The Port’s Master Plan includes environment and sustainability goals to reduce environmental and health impacts from Port operations; preserve and enhance natural resources at the Port so that all communities may benefit from them; and mitigate the potential impacts on coastal resources from proposed developments.193
There is a fair argument that the Project’s air quality and health risk impacts make the Project inconsistent with each of the goals listed above. The IS/ND fails to acknowledge the significant impacts to air quality and public health posed by the Project. Unless the Port takes measures to reduce these impacts to below significant levels, the Project will fail to comply with the goal to reduce environmental and health impacts from Port operations. Relatedly, the Port’s goals of preserving natural resources and mitigating impacts to those resources are flouted by the Project’s clear negative impacts on already bad air quality. Public enjoyment of coastal resources is inhibited by poor air quality. The Port has a duty to do more to mitigate the significant health impacts from the Project’s significant contributions to local air pollution.

In addition, the Project is inconsistent with the Master Plan’s permitting policies.194 Per section 1215 of the Long Beach City Charter, no person may construct a structure within the Harbor District without first applying for and securing from the Board of Harbor Commissioners a permit to do so. The Board of Harbor Commissioners approves HDPs, which are a consolidation of a building permit and Coastal Development Permit under the California Coastal Act.195

Level I Permits are for developments occurring within the Harbor District that are emergency, administrative, or minor and expected to have insignificant impacts on the Port or surrounding environment.196 These include projects with:

193 Master Plan Update, p. 5-5 (Environment and Sustainability Goals 1, 2, and 6). 194 Master Plan Update, pp. 8-1–8-4.
195 Master Plan Update, p. 8-1.
196 Master Plan Update, pp. 8-2–8-3.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
Minimal capital resources
Development costs at or below those established by Port for minor projects
No major change in land and/or water use
Minimal changes in density or intensity of use
No significant adverse environmental impacts
Level II Permits are for development of new Port facilities such as marine terminals; modification of structures for recreational purposes; creation of new landfills; dredging of water areas not presently used for navigation, maneuvering, or berthing; and in general major or minor alterations that are not exempt.197 Level II development projects include those with:

Capital expenditures greater than Level I limits;
Potential minor or major environmental impacts that can be mitigated; Potential unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated; and Potential changes in land and water use.

The Master Plan explains that “[a]ny vote on an application may be taken only at a properly noticed public hearing, after the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been met, and following completion of staff reports and recommendations.”198 Regardless of the permit level, this Project presents significant environmental impacts that must be mitigated. As a result, the requirements of CEQA have not been met and the Board of Harbor Commissioners may not approve an application for the HDP.

VIII. APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WOULD VIOLATE THE

CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT

Section 30708 of California Coastal Act requires all Port-related developments to minimize substantial adverse environmental impacts.199 Under section 30715, “[d]evelopments for storage, transmission, and processing liquefied natural gas and crude oil in such quantities as would have a significant impact on the oil and gas supply of the state and/or nation” can be appealed to the California Coastal Commission prior to approval by the Board of Harbor Commissioners 197 Master Plan Update, p. 8-3.
198 Master Plan Update, p. 8-4.
199 Pub. Res. Code § 30708(a).

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
(“BHC”).200 Per section 30715.5, BHC shall not approve or grant an application for a permit for any development within the Harbor District unless a determination has been made by the Board that either (i) the development conforms with the certified Port Master Plan or (ii) the development is exempt from the Coastal Act.201 In contravention of the policies of the Coastal Act, the Project fails to minimize substantial adverse environmental impacts by failing to acknowledge and mitigate significant negative impacts to air quality and public health.202 The deficiencies in the IS/ND’s Project description discussed above also obscure the significance of impacts of the Project on state oil supplies which is pertinent to whether there are grounds to appeal the development to the California Coastal Permission prior to approval by the BHC.203 Finally, in violation of section 30715.5, the Project does not conform with the Port Master Plan as explained above.

Moreover, no exemption in section 30610 applies to the Project, so the BHC is forbidden from granting HDP application.204 Unless adequate mitigation measures can be adopted to reduce impacts below significant levels, an EIR must be prepared to evaluate the severity of those impacts on coastal resources before any permit may be approved.

IX. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the IS/ND for the Project is wholly inadequate under CEQA. It must be thoroughly revised and recirculated as an EIR to provide legally adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, all the Project’s potentially significant impacts. These revisions will necessarily require that the CEQA document be recirculated for additional public review. Until the Port has

200 Pub. Res. Code § 30715.
201 Pub. Res. Code § 30715.5. Exemptions from Coastal Development Permits include: improvements to existing single-family residences; improvements to any structure other than a single-family residence or a public works facility that does not involve a risk of adverse environmental effect, adverse public access effect, or change in use contrary to Coastal Act policies; maintenance dredging of existing navigation channels; repair or maintenance that do not result in addition or enlargement of activities; any category of development in a specific area exempted by two-thirds vote of appointed members of Commission; the installation, testing, or replacement of any necessary utility connection between an existing service facility and any development approved pursuant to this division; and replacement of structure destroyed by disaster. (Pub. Res. Code. § 30610.) 202 Pub. Res. Code § 30708(a).
203 Pub. Res. Code § 30715.
204 Pub. Res. Code §§ 30610, 30715.5.

November 20, 2020

4943-007acp
printed on recycled paper
complied with these requirements for revision and recirculation as described herein, the Port may not lawfully approve the Project.

Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Project.

Sincerely,
William Mumby
WM:acp
Attachment

ATTACHMENT A
Comments
on the
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
for the
World Oil Terminal
Long Beach, California
November 20, 2020
By

Phyllis Fox, PhD, PE
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1

2. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT AND UNSUPPORTED .......... 2

2.1. Construction NOx Emissions Are Significant ......................................................... 4

3. OPERATIONAL VOC EMISSIONS ARE SIGNIFICANT .......................................... 5

3.1. The Tanks Model Underestimates VOC Emissions ............................................... 7

3.2. Revised Tank VOC Emissions................................................................................. 18

3.3. Roof Landing, Degassing, and Cleaning Emissions Were Omitted .................. 19

3.4. Other Omitted Sources of VOC Emissions............................................................ 23

3.5. Offsets Are Not Valid CEQA Mitigation............................................................... 24

4. HEALTH IMPACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT .................................................................. 25

4.1. Health Impacts from Speciated Tank HAP Emissions Are Significant ............. 26

4.2. Cumulative Air Quality and Public Health Impacts Are Significant ................ 28

4.3. The IS/ND Fails to Demonstrate That the Increase in VOC Emissions Will Not Cause a Violation or Make Significantly Worse an Existing Violation of VOCs, Resulting in Significant Health Impacts ............................................... 30

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Maximum Daily Operation Emission Increases (lb/day) ................ 5 Table 2: Comparison of DIAL Results and Tank Emissions Estimated Using AP-42................................................................................................................................ 10 Table 3: Benzene and VOC Emissions Estimated by DIAL Compared with Emissions Estimated by EPA Emission Factors ........................................................ 11 Table 4: Crude Oil Tank DIAL Measurements...................................................................... 13

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: PM and NOx Emission by Tier for a Backhoe ......................................................... 4 Figure 2: Distribution of Measured VOC Emissions in Relation to Emission Factor Estimates (lb/hr) ................................................................................................ 12 Figure 3: Comparison of Total VOC Emissions from a Range of Petrochemical Storage Tanks by IR-DIAL compared to AP-42 ......................................................... 13 ii
Figure 4: Ratios of Emissions Measured with SOF and Mobile DOAS to Annual Average Emissions Reported to Texas........................................................................ 14 Figure 5: Comparison of Measured and Calculated VOC Emissions from Refinery Storage Tanks ................................................................................................. 16 Figure 6: Traditional Internal Floating Roof Tank ................................................................ 20 Figure 7: Number of Days Air Quality in Zip Code 90802 Exceeded Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standards................................................................................... 31 1 1. INTRODUCTION
The World Oil Terminal is located at 1405 Pier C Street at the Port of Long Beach (POLB) in Long Beach, California. The Terminal is privately owned by Ribost Terminal LLC. The Terminal is a 6-acre site that contains seven existing petroleum tanks with a total storage capacity of 502,000 barrels (bbl). Three of the existing tanks store crude oil and serve the World Oil Refinery through the terminal truck loading rack. The remaining four tanks are leased to Marathon Petroleum and Glencore and store fuel oil received and shipped by pipeline.

The Applicant, Ribost Terminal, LLC, doing business as World Oil Terminals (World Oil), has proposed to construct and operate two new internal floating roof 25,000-bbl crude oil tanks at the Terminal. The new tanks would replace the Terminal’s existing tanks that supply crude oil to the World Oil Refinery. The new tanks will be able to transfer product to and from an existing pipeline and also receive product from upstream oil production facilities. Tank contents will include a combination of gas oil, atmospheric gas oil, heavy vacuum gas oil, light vacuum gas oil, fuel oil, crude oil, and petroleum distillates.1 The three existing tanks that currently supply World Oil will become available for leasing to third-party vendors. The Port of Long Beach (POLB), the CEQA lead agency, has prepared an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the Project.2
I have reviewed the IS/ND and supporting documents obtained from the Port of Long Beach and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) via Public Record Act (PRA) requests. In my opinion, the IS/ND has failed to identify and mitigate significant environmental impacts. As demonstrated below, the Project description in the IS/ND is incomplete and impacts unsupported, which required filing several Public Record Act Requests (PRAs) to obtain sufficient information to evaluate the Project. The Project as described in IS/ND and supporting documents is incomplete and will result in significant environmental impacts, including:

Construction impacts are unsupported.

Construction NOx emissions are significant and unmitigated.

1 York Engineering, LLC, Permit to Construct/Permit to Operate: Two Additional Petroleum Storage Tanks, Prepared for Ribost Terminal, LLC, SCAQMD Facility ID: 111238, June 2019 (PTC Application), p.

8. Exhibit 1.
2 Aspen Environmental Group, Draft Negative Declaration/Application Summary Report, World Oil Tank Installation Project, Port of Long Beach (IS/ND), October 2020; https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/ 265083-2/attachment/UezPRXh_26SMuyRNTyTeid8myaWKsQmqp1tDBYq35LEvO_ TI1v0THwdAwZw2yP80GCPPHU0o85_iJZ4d0.
2 Operational volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the new tanks are significant and unmitigated.

Operational hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from the tanks will result in significant cancer impacts, which are unmitigated.

Cumulative VOC impacts are significant and unmitigated.

The Project description is inadequate for failing to include all sources of emissions and for failing to disclose information about the future use of the repurposed existing tanks required to estimate the change in emissions from their new use.

Thus, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared.

My resume is included in Exhibit 3 to these Comments. I have over 40 years of experience in the field of environmental engineering, including air emissions and air pollution control; greenhouse gas (GHG) emission inventory and control; water quality and water supply investigations; hazardous waste investigations; hazard investigations; risk of upset modeling; environmental permitting; nuisance investigations (odor, noise); health risk assessments; EIRs; and litigation support. I have reviewed and commented on hundreds of CEQA documents and air permit applications, including for tank farms, refineries, and other industrial facilities. I have MS and PhD degrees in environmental engineering from the University of California at Berkeley. I am a licensed professional engineer (chemical) in California. My work has been cited in two published CEQA opinions: (1) Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee, City of San Leandro, and City of Alameda et al. v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 598 and Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310 and has supported the record in many other CEQA cases.

2. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT AND UNSUPPORTED The IS/ND estimated construction emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) and concluded that all emissions were less than significant.3 When construction emissions are estimated using the CalEEMod model, as here, it is standard practice to support the emissions by including CalEEMod input and output files in an appendix to the CEQA document. Appendix A to the IS/ND contains the CalEEMod output files but not the input files.

The IS/ND does not contain any of the information required to evaluate the IS/ND’s construction emissions or to make an independent estimate of construction emissions. Specifically, the IS/ND lacks a construction schedule, construction equipment engine tiers, construction equipment engine horsepower ratings, and hours

3 IS/ND, Table 4.3-1, pdf 33.
3 of use for all construction equipment.4 Thus, the IS/ND fails as an informational document under CEQA for failing to support the Project’s construction emissions.

A PRA was filed, requesting all of the CalEEMod files, specifically inputs including information on engine tiers for construction equipment. Instead, an Excel spreadsheet5was provided that summarized input values. However, without the actual CalEEMod inputs, as generated by the model itself, one cannot be certain that the model was run using the values in the Excel summary spreadsheet. It is standard practice to provide the complete CalEEMod run, including all CalEEMod inputs and outputs from the model itself. Otherwise, there is no proof that the values summarized in the spreadsheet were actually modeled. The information provided in the Excel spreadsheet supplied in response to our PRA is summarized as follows:

This is not the CalEEMod input but rather a summary of it. Without the actual input file, it is impossible to determine whether these values were actually evaluated in the CalEEMod run for this Project without redoing the analysis from scratch. Further, while the tier is disclosed for most of the equipment in the Excel spreadsheet, it is omitted for others (cement and mortar mixers, forklifts, pavers, rollers), which are designated as “no change,” raising the issue of “no change” from what? The emissions from construction equipment are determined by the “tier” of the engine in each piece of equipment. The engine tier is essential information required to evaluate construction air quality impacts because it directly determines emissions from construction equipment. Assuming the Excel spreadsheet in Exhibit 2 accurately summarizes the inputs to the CalEEMod analysis, the CalEEMod inputs assumed Tier 4 4While a list of construction equipment is included in Table 4.13-3 with respect to noise analysis, other details about the equipment, including engine tiers, needed to be obtained via a separate request for records.
5CalEEMod Input File Excel Spreadsheet, Exhibit 2.

4 construction equipment for most equipment. However, the IS/ND does not impose mitigation specifically requiring the use of Tier 4 engines in all equipment. Therefore, the Applicant will be free to use equipment with lower tier engines, which are substantially cheaper and have higher emissions, thus significantly increasing construction emissions and construction health impacts. Comment 2.1. The IS/ND does not specify the engine tier or require the use of construction equipment with the engine tiers assumed in the air quality analysis as summarized in Exhibit 2.

2.1. Construction NOx Emissions Are Significant
The amount of pollution from construction equipment is categorized using a system of “engine tiers.” The higher the tier, the lower the emissions.6 For example, for a typical backhoe, four of which will be used to construct the Project,7the emissions of NOx and PM in grams per brake horsepower hour (g/bHp-Hr) as a function of engine tier are shown in Figure 1.8
Figure 1: PM and NOx Emission by Tier for a Backhoe9
This figure shows that NOx exhaust emissions would be about 35 (7/0.2) times higher if all Tier 1 construction equipment were used instead of Tier 4 equipment.

Similarly, this figure shows that PM exhaust emissions would be about 15 (0.3/0.02) 6See, e.g., DieselNet, Emission Standards: Nonroad Diesel Engines; https://dieselnet.com/standards/ us/nonroad.php. See also: DieselNet, Emission Standards, Nonroad Diesel Engines; https://dieselnet.com/standards/us/nonroad.php#tier4.
7Exhibit 2, tab: “tblConstEquipMitigation.”
8See also EPA, Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines: Exhaust Emission Standards (March 2016), https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100OA05.pdf. 9Ibid. Power appears in kW in the EPA table but has been converted to hp here.

5 times higher if all Tier 1 equipment were used instead of Tier 4 equipment. It is standard practice to disclose the construction fleet (type/number of equipment) and construction equipment engine tier in CEQA documents. This IS/ND fails to identify the specific pieces of construction equipment with their engine tiers, thus failing as an informational document under CEQA.

Without specific requirements for the engine “tier” of all construction equipment that will be used to build the Project, the applicant is free to use the cheapest, highest emitting, Tier 1 equipment to build the Project. Tier 1 construction equipment would emit over 35 times more NOx and 15 times more PM10 than the most efficient Tier 4 construction equipment. The applicant has a significant financial incentive to use lower tier, higher polluting equipment as it is much cheaper than the newer, better controlled Tier 4 construction equipment. Thus, unmitigated increases in NOx, ROG, and PM10 from construction equipment could exceed the SCAQMD’s CEQA construction significance thresholds. Construction NOx emissions, for example, will exceed the 100 lb/day significance threshold if Tier 1 equipment were used.10 As there is nothing in the IS/ND to prevent the applicant from selecting all Tier 1 off-road construction equipment, construction NOx impacts are significant and unmitigated, requiring the preparation of an EIR.

The significant NOx emissions from construction equipment can be controlled by requiring the use of Tier 4 construction equipment or by retrofitting older Tier 1 to 2 equipment with similarly effective emissions controls, such as exhaust selective catalytic reduction (SCR). A mitigation measure requiring Tier 4 construction must be included in the IS/ND, which requires the preparation of IS/MND or EIR.

3. OPERATIONAL VOC EMISSIONS ARE SIGNIFICANT
The IS/ND estimated Project emissions as summarized in Table 1, concluding that the Project would not result in any significant operational air quality impacts.

Table 1: Summary of Maximum Daily Operation Emission Increases (lb/day) 10Revised construction NOx emissions (based on IS/ND Table 4.3-1): (30.3 lb/day)(35) = 1060.5 lb/day.

6 This table shows that the tanks are the major source of VOC emissions. As demonstrated below, there are major problems with the VOC emissions in Table 1 that underestimate VOC emissions and their significance.

First, the TANKS model used to estimate VOC emissions is known to significantly underestimate VOC emissions from tanks.

Second, there are sources of VOC emissions from the tanks that are not included in the TANKS model and that were not disclosed in the IS/ND.

Third, emissions from the repurposed tanks and from fugitive components (two pumps, connections to existing pipelines, valves, connectors, etc.11) were omitted.

Fourth, emission offsets, hinted as mitigation in footnote 1 to Table 1, are not valid CEQA mitigation for VOC emissions.

Fifth, the significance thresholds listed in Table 1 are for Project construction, not Project operation.12
Sixth, I was unable to verify the tank fugitive VOC emissions of 9.7 lbs/day based on calculations in the SCAQMD’s Permit to Construct Evaluation.13 Seventh, the IS/ND indicates that the Project will expand crude oil storage,14 asserting “the proposed project would provide additional storage capacity of petroleum products for refining and distribution.”15 An increase in storage generally implies an increase in crude oil throughput at the supported refinery and hence, an increase in refinery emissions. The IS/ND is silent as to any changes in operation of the World Oil Refinery and resulting emissions that would occur as a result of the Project. Some of these issues are discussed below.

Eighth, the consultant to the Applicant, Aspen Environmental Group, in discussing the air quality analysis, reported that “The information provided by the Applicant does not contain enough information to quantitatively estimate emission increases from operation of the new tanks. Specifically, the throughput is not known,

11IS/ND, pdf 16, p. 2-4.
12SCAQMD, South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds; http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/ default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 13York Engineering, LLC, Robost Terminal LLC, SCAQMD Facility ID: 111238, Application for Permit to Construct/Permit to Operate – Two Addititional Petroleum Storage Tanks, June 2019, Exhibit 1. 14IS/ND, pp. 1, 2-4, pdf 9, 16.
15IS/ND, p. 1-1, pdf 11.
7 the specific liquid to be stored is not known, and the effects to ground and marine transportation aren’t known.”16
The IS/ND used the EPA model, TANKS 4.0.9d, to estimate tank VOC emissions.17 The EPA no longer recommends using this model to calculate tank emissions. The TANKS website cautions that the outdated model be used “at your own risk.”18 Rather, EPA recommends using equations and algorithms in AP-42, Chapter 7 to estimate VOC emissions from storage tanks:19
Further, the TANKS 4.09d model is known to underestimate VOC (and hence HAP) emissions in certain circumstances. These circumstances apply to both the new and repurposed tanks, including the following:

TANKS does not accommodate tanks that receive warmer-than- ambient stock but are not heated. Products that may have warmer- than-ambient temperatures include gas oil, naphtha, and alkylate. The draft permits for the tanks do not prohibit warmer-than-ambient stock.

These permits also allow products with a Reid vapor pressure up to

10.0 pounds per square inch (gasoline),20which could include warmer- than-ambient stock. The Application for the tanks indicates they will receive product from upstream oil production facilities,21including “a combination of gas oil, atmospheric gas oil (AGO), heavy vacuum gas oil (HVGO), light vacuum gas oil (LVGO), fuel oil, crude oil, and 16Walters, September 14, 2018, p. 3, Exhibit 18.
17IS/ND, p. 4-9, pdf 33; York Engineering, LLC, Permit to Construct/Permit to Operate: Two Additional Petroleum Storage Tanks, Prepared for Ribost Terminal, LLC, SCAQMD Facility ID: 111238, June 2019 (PTC Application), pdf 22-27. Exhibit 1.
18EPA, TANKS Emissions Estimation Software, Version 4.09D,https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ software/tanks/.
19ERA Environmental, Can I Still Use EPA TANKS? What You Need to Know Right Now; https://www.era-environmental.com/blog/epa-tanks-what-you-need-to-know. 20SCAQMD, Permits to Construct, Ribost Terminal, LLC, Tank Nos. TK-1 and TK-2, Application Nos. 614274 and 614275, Conditions 4: “The operator shall only use this equipment to store crude oil or non- gasoline petroleum products having a Reid vapor pressure not to exceed 10.0 pounds per square inch.” 21PTC Application, p. 6, Exhibit 1 (“The new tanks will be able to transfer products to and from an existing pipeline and also receive product from upstream oil production facilities also located in Long Beach, CA.”).

8 petroleum distillates,”22which likely will have temperatures warmer than ambient temperatures.

Default inputs used for complex mixtures such as crude oil, gas oil and naphtha do not accurately capture the large variations in vapor pressure and composition.

The TANKS model implements calculations in AP-42. In November 2006, Section 7.1 of AP-42 was updated with subsection 7.1.3.2.2, Roof Landings.23 The TANKS program has not been updated with these new algorithms for internal floating roof tanks, such as those used by the Project.24 It is based on the 1997 version of AP-42, Section 7.1.25 The PTC Application did not include these emissions.

In these circumstances, EPA recommends the calculation procedures included in AP-42, Chapter 7.26 However, these also underestimate tank emissions. It is well known that both the TANKS model and the AP-42 algorithms underestimate tank VOC and HAP emissions over the lifetime of a tank.27,28 In over 35 studies performed between 1988 and 2008, measured tank emissions were consistently considerably higher than reported emissions.29
The TANKS 4.09 model used by the Applicant is based on algorithms developed by the American Petroleum Institute for “ideal new installations.” However, over time, tank performance degrades, resulting in increased emissions. The VOC emissions must remain below the SCAQMD significance threshold over the tank’s lifetime, not just in the early years of operation. Actual measurements of tank emissions using remote

22PTC Application, Exhibit 1, Table 3-1 and Section 3.1, p. 8. 23EPA, TANKS Software Frequent Questions, https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/faq/tanksfaq.html#14. 24Ibid.
25Ibid.
26ERA Environmental, How to Calculate Storage Tanks Emissions: How-To Guide, “Now that EPA TANKS 4.09d is no longer accepted for compliance reporting, accurately determining emissions from liquid storage tanks has become one of the most complicated and time consuming air emissions tasks”; https://lando.era-environmental.com/the-science-of-tanks-emissions; Trinity Consultants, Calculating Tank Emissions with TANKESP, January 7, 2016, https://www.trinityconsultants.com/news/ technology/calculating-tank-emissions-with-tankesp.
27See literature review in Environmental Integrity Project, Comments on EPA’s Draft “Emission Estimation Protocol for Petroleum Refineries,” March 31, 2010, p. 5, https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/ thester/courses/Emerging%20Tech%202011/20100331_EIPCommentsonRefineryEmissionsProtocol.pdf. 28Alex Cuclis, Why Emission Factors Don’t Work at Refineries and What To Do About It, Paper Presented at the Emissions Inventory Conference in Tampa, Florida, August 13-16, 2012, Exhibit 4; https://gaftp.epa.gov/Air_Quality_Data/nei/ei_conference/EI20/session7/acuclis.pdf. 29Ibid., p. 6.
9 sensing methods such as differential absorption lidar (“DIAL”)30indicate that tank emissions are substantially higher than calculated using the TANKS model and AP-42 algorithms, which both substantially underestimate VOC and HAP emissions. Swedish authorities, for example, on discovering these discrepancies, required the use of remote sensing methods in place of emission factors to estimate tank emissions.31 Since 1995, all five Swedish refineries report emissions based on either SOF or DIAL studies performed at least once every 3 years.32 Some of these studies are reviewed below.

First, a study at a Canadian refinery demonstrated that the TANKS program underestimates VOCs by a factor of 33 and benzene by a factor of 98.33 Second, an EPA evaluation of DIAL emission test data for the BP Refinery in Texas City, Texas,34found VOC emissions underestimated by factors of 1.535to 1036for tanks storing “various products” and concluded that “[o]n average, the DIAL results for external floating roof tanks storing crude oil were at least 3 to 7 times higher than estimates that used conditions at the time of the DIAL testing.”37

30LIDAR is a remote-surveying technology that measures distance by illuminating a target with a laser light. Differential absorption lidar (DIAL) measurements utilize two or more closely spaced wavelengths to measure the concentration of atmospheric gases. See ScienceDirect, Differential Absorption Lidar; https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/differential-absorption-lidar. 31Cuclis 2012, p. 4 and Figure 1, Exhibit 4.
32Ibid.
33Allan K. Chambers, Melvin Strosher, Tony Wootton, Jan Moncrieff, and Philip McCready, Direct Measurement of Fugitive Emissions of Hydrocarbons from a Refinery, Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, v. 58, August 2008, pp. 1047–1056, Tables 7 and 8 (“storage or handling”); https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3155/1047-3289.58.8.1047?needAccess=true. Exhibit 5. 34U.S. EPA, Critical Review of DIAL Emission Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas, November 2010, Table 1, https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/bp_dial_review_report_12-3-10.pdf. 35U.S. EPA, November 2010, Table 1, Tank 43: 2/1.3 = 1.5. 36Table 2, Tanks 54, 55, 56, 98: Maximum underestimate for Tanks 54, 55, 56, 98 = 3.1/0.3 = 10.3. 37Ibid, p. ES-4.
10 Table 2: Comparison of DIAL Results and Tank Emissions Estimated Using AP-4238
Note: VFR = vertical fixed roof tank; EFR = external floating roof tank Third, similar studies at the Shell Deer Park Refinery in the Houston Ship Channel area, reviewed by the U.S. EPA, demonstrated that standard EPA tank calculation methods underestimated VOC emissions by factors of 4 to 132 and benzene emissions by factors of 10 to 93.39 This is shown in Table 3 below. 38Ibid., Table 1, p. ES-2, pdf 8.
39U.S. EPA, EPA Review of Available Documents and Rationale in Support of Final Emissions Factors and Negative Determinations for Flares, Tanks, and Wastewater Treatment Systems, Table 5-2, pdf 41, April 2015, https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/consentdecree/final_report_review.pdf.

11 Table 3: Benzene and VOC Emissions Estimated by DIAL Compared with Emissions Estimated by EPA Emission Factors40
Fourth, one of the studies reviewed by the EPA, published in a refereed journal article, reported underestimates of benzene from internal floating roof tanks by factors of 6 to 254 and underestimates of VOCs from external and internal floating roof tanks by factors of 8 to 121.41 The two internal floating roof tanks had the largest underestimate, a factor of 121 compared to the emission factor estimate.42 The 40Ibid.
41Daniel Hoyt and Loren H. Raun, Measured and Estimated Benzene and Volatile Organic Carbon (VOC) Emissions at a Major U.S. Refinery/Chemical Plant: Comparison and Prioritization, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, v. 65, no. 8, 2015, Tables 4 & 5; Exhibit 6 and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10962247.2015.1058304?needAccess=true. 42Hoyt and Raun 2015, Exhibit 6: calculated from Table 5 as: Emission factor underestimate = [measured mean/emission factor estimate].

12 distribution of measured VOCs compared to emission factor estimates is summarized in Figure 2. Tank sets 5, 6, and 9 are external floating roofs, tank set 7 is two internal floating roof tanks, tank set 8 is four fixed roof tanks, and tank set 9 is two external floating roof tanks.43 The highest relative error (>97%) occurred at the tank set 2 area, the tank set 3 area, and tank sets 1, 2, and 3, which are all internal floating roof tanks, proposed for the Project.44
Figure 2: Distribution of Measured VOC Emissions in Relation to Emission Factor Estimates (lb/hr)45
Fifth, as shown in Table 4 below, a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) study reported underestimates of up to a factor of 39 for crude oil tanks, compared to results obtained using the TANKS model.46 The TCEQ concluded that “[c]rude oil default parameter data in TANKS, including vapor pressure, needs to be investigated” and “[c]hemical parameter default data for crude oil and mid-refined 43Hoyt and Raun 2015, Table 1, p. 1025, Exhibit 6.
44Hoyt and Raun 2015, Table 1, p. 1025, Exhibit 6.
45Hoyt and Raun, 2015, Figure 4, Exhibit 6. Note that the measured emissions of VOCs from the wastewater area are significantly higher than other areas. Therefore, the y axis is broken to accommodate the extreme values.
46Appendix C, Russ Nettles, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Differential Absorption Lidar (DIAL) Project, Summer 2007, Texas City, Texas, April 1, 2008, pdf 32, 53, https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/efpac/workshops/remotewkshp08/appendix_c_presentations.pdf.

13 products in TANKS may needs [sic] to be improved.”47 The Project’s tanks will store crude oil and mid-refined products.

Table 4: Crude Oil Tank DIAL Measurements48
Sixth, IR-DIAL measurements at a UK refinery had consistently higher VOC emissions than estimated using the EPA Tanks program. This is illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Comparison of Total VOC Emissions from a Range of Petrochemical Storage Tanks by IR-DIAL compared to AP-4249
Seventh, the Houston Bureau of Pollution Control and Prevention conducted a comprehensive survey of emissions from a combined petroleum refinery and chemical plant complex in the Houston Ship Channel area using DIAL.50 This study 47Ibid., pdf 76.
48Ibid., pdf 53.
49Rod Robinson et al., Infrared Differential Absorption Lidar (DIAL) Measurements of Hydrocarbon Emissions, Journal of Environmental Monitoring, v. 13, 2011, p. 2213-2220, Figure 6. Exhibit 7. 50Loren Raun and Dan W. Hoyt, City of Houston, Measurement and Analysis of Benzene and VOC Emissions in the Houston Ship Channel Area and Selected Surrounding Major Stationary Sources Using

14 demonstrated VOC emissions from tanks estimated using standard EPA emission factors were underestimated by factors of 4 to 132 compared to real-time DIAL measurements.51 Benzene emissions from tanks were underestimated by factors of 6 to 254 compared to real-time DIAL measurements.52
Eighth, in another study, Johansson et al. (2014) reported for refineries in Texas that, “Despite some significant variations from year to year and from area to area, there is a clear pattern of measured VOC emissions (alkanes, ethane, and propene) exceeding reported emissions with almost an order of magnitude on average, while no similar pattern exists for SO2 and NO2.”53 This pattern is highlighted in Figure 4, where the ratios between measured emissions and reported annual average emissions are plotted for each year, species, and area.

Figure 4: Ratios of Emissions Measured with SOF and Mobile DOAS to Annual Average Emissions Reported to Texas54
DIAL (Differential Absorption Light Detection and Ranging) Technology to Support Ambient HAP Concentrations Reductions in the Community (DIAL Project), Final Report, July 20, 2011, Exhibit 8, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-01/documents/houston-dial.pdf. See also: Hoyt and Raun, Exhibit 6.
51Raun and Hoyt, 2011, Table 4.4a, pp. 93-94, Exhibit 8. 52Hoyt and Raun, 2015, Figure 3 and Table 4, Exhibit 6. From Table 4: Underestimate = Mean/Emission Factor Estimate.
53John K. E. Johansson et al., Emission Measurements of Alkenes, Alkanes, SO2, and NO2 from Stationary Sources in Southeast Texas Over a 5 Year Period Using SOF and Mobile DOAS, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, February 27, 2014, Exhibit 9; https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/2013JD020485.
54Johansson et al. 2014, Figure 11, Exhibit 9.

15 Ninth, scientists at the Second International Workshop on Remote Sensing reported that the AP-42 tank model underestimated VOC emissions by factors of 5 to

50. This study reported: “DIAL crude oil tanks measurements were 5-10 times greater than calculated emissions using the TANKS program. Crude oil default parameter data in TANKS, including vapor pressure, need to be investigated.”55 Elsewhere in this report: “For the Houston Ship Channel, there were 5-50 times greater VOC emissions than reported in the 2004 TCEQ inventory. . . The discrepancies between measurements and conventional estimates are consistent with differences observed elsewhere, e.g., Sweden.”56
Tenth, a study at a Texas refinery found that VOC emissions from crude tanks measured by DIAL were 5 to 10 times greater than calculated using the TANKS program.57 DIAL measurements ranged from <2 lb/hr (not detected) for one tank, up to 22–39 lb/hr for another, with several in between (at <5, 5, 7, 11, and 16 lb/hr), while the TANKS program using crude oil default parameters estimated emissions under 1 lb/hr.58 Studies in Sweden using DIAL (where all refineries are required to perform DIAL measurements every 2 to 3 years) show that the EPA model underestimates tank emissions by factors of 2 to 5.59 The DIAL studies have been confirmed in the field by independent groups using a different test method.60
Figure 5, for example, compares DIAL measurements with calculated emissions at one refinery in Sweden. The underestimates are generally due to failure to address tank degradation over time; exclusion of upsets, malfunction, startups and shutdowns;

55U.S. EPA, 2nd International Workshop on Remote Sensing of Emissions: New Technologies and Recent Work, 2008, pp. ix; https://clu-in.org/download/char/voc2008/voc_fugitive_losses_2nd_wkshp_5-29-

08.pdf.
56Ibid.
57Ibid., p. ix.
58Ibid., p. 7; Robinson et al., supranote 48, at 16; Nettles 2008, supranote 45, at App. ix (“For the Houston Ship Channel, there were 5-50 times greater VOC emissions than reported in the 2004 TCEQ inventory.

For NOx and SO2 values, the discrepancy is less, a factor of 1.5 to 1.9.”) and 51-53. 58Remote Sensing of Emissions at 18.
59Karin Fransson and Johan Mellqvist, Measurement of VOCs at Refineries Using Solar Occultation Flux Technique, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden 2002, https://www.researchgate. net/profile/Johan_Mellqvist/publication/228893370_Measurements_of_VOCs_at_Refineries_Using_the_ Solar_Occultation_Flux_Technique/links/02e7e516cfc5c2f528000000/Measurements-of-VOCs-at- Refineries-Using-the-Solar-Occultation-Flux-Technique.pdf?origin=publication_list; Nettles 2008 at App.

C, 43. See also M. Kihlman, J. Mellqvist, and J. Sameulsson, Monitoring of VOC Emissions from Refineries and Storage Depots Using the Solar Occultation Flux Method, 2005; https://clu- in.org/characterization/technologies/pdf/SOF-Refinery-report-KORUS-2005.pdf. 60K. Fransson and J. Mellqvist, Measurement of VOCs at Refineries Using Solar Occultation Flux Technique, Exhibit 10, and Nettles 2008 at App. C, 43.
16 exclusion of some types of emission events; improper input parameters such as built-in defaults and winds that deviate from the average.61 Winds that deviate from average, such as the Santa Ana winds, are a concern in the area where the Project’s tanks will be located.

Figure 5: Comparison of Measured and Calculated VOC Emissions from Refinery Storage Tanks62
In contrast, this and other studies63found good agreement between emission inventories and measurements for NOx and SOx. The average ratio between measured and reported emissions for NOx was 0.8 and for SOx, 1.5, compared to an average ratio of 6.2 for VOCs,64consistent with other studies. Most major refining processes that emit NOx and SOx are continuously monitored using continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMSs), while VOC emissions are calculated using emission factors from AP- 42, or estimated from infrequent stack tests—explaining the discrepancy between VOCs, which are grossly underestimated when calculated using AP-42 emission factors and models, such as the TANK model, and NOx and SOx, which are much more 61Johan Mellqvist et. al., Measurements of Industrial Emissions of VOCs, NH3, NO2 , and SO2in Texas using the Solar Occultation Flux Method and Mobile DOAS, August 20, 2007 (rev. September 17, 2007), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241447345_Measurements_of_industrial_emissions_of_VOC s_NH3_NO2_and_SO2_in_Texas_using_the_Solar_Occultation_Flux_method_and_mobile_DOAS; Technical Memorandum from Brenda Shine, EPA/SPPD, to EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146 (July 27, 2007), http://www.greenhoustontx.gov/reports/lowbias.pdf. 62Alex Cuclis, Why Emission Factors Don’t Work at Refineries and What to Do About It, Presentation at the Emissions Inventory Conference, Tampa, FL, August 13-16, 2012: Emission Inventories—Meeting the Challenges Posed by Emerging Global, National, Regional and Local Air Quality Issues, https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei20/session7/acuclis.pdf. 63See, for example, FluxSense Inc., Emission Measurements of VOCs, NO2and SO2from Refineries in the South Coast Air Basin Using Solar Occultation Flux and Other Remote Sensing Methods, Final Report, April 11, 2017 (FluxSense Report), Table 43, pdf 95, Exhibit 11; Johansson et al. 2014, p. 1983, Exhibit 9. 64FluxSense Report, Table 43, pdf 95, Exhibit 11.

17 accurately estimated in emission inventories. This supports the importance of adopting permit conditions for real-time VOC monitoring, such as routinely performed in Sweden, to ensure the emissions assumed in the IS/ND are practically enforceable.

Finally, the SCAQMD, where the subject tanks are located, commissioned a study to compare calculated emissions from six refineries and a refinery tank farm using methods employed in the IS/ND with real-time measurements.65 This study, the FluxSense Report, used mobile optical measurements at the Carson66tank farm for 8 days between September 28 and October 7, 2015 to estimate tank VOC and BTEX67 emissions. This study confirmed that tanks are the major source of VOC emissions at the Carson refinery, comprising 71% of the total measured VOC emissions.68 This is consistent with results reported elsewhere for refinery tank emissions.69 The FluxSense study demonstrated that the six refineries included in the study underestimated their VOC emissions by an average factor of 6.2 (2.7-12) and benzene by an average factor of 34 (3.2-202), compared to those reported to the SCAQMD in emission inventories.70 The underestimate could be even larger as one of the refineries in the area was partially shutdown during the study. As tank emissions contribute two thirds of total refinery VOC emissions,71it is reasonable to assume that tank VOC emissions are underestimated by about a factor of 6.2 and benzene emissions by about a factor of 34 based on the FluxSense study.

65FluxSense Report, Exhibit 11.
66The tank farm monitored in this study is at the largest refinery in the SCAQMD (FluxSense Report, p. 31), presumably the Carson Refinery, owned by Marathon Petroleum Corp.; https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-petroleum-market/californias- oil-refineries.
67Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX).
68The VOC emissions from the Carson tank farm, reported as alkane flux (less methane), are 191 kg/hr (FluxSense Report, Table 38). Total VOC emissions from the Carson Refinery including its tank farm, reported as alkane flux (less methane), are 269 kg/hr (FluxSense Report, Table ES-1). Thus, the percent of Carson VOC emissions that originates from the tanks is (191/269)100 = 71%. 69See, e.g., Johansson 2014, p. 1989, Exhibit 9; M. Kihlman, J. Mellqvist, and J. Sameulsson, Monitoring of VOC Emissions from Refineries and Storage Depots Using the Solar Occultation Flux Method, 2005, pdf 55, 81, and Table 4 at pdf 90 (“Of the emitted gas 26% originates from the process, 31% from the crude-oil tanks, 32% from product tanks, 8% from the water treatment facility and 2% from transport related activities.”); https://clu-in.org/characterization/technologies/pdf/SOF-Refinery-report-KORUS- 2005.pdf; Manne Kihlman, Application of Solar FTIR Spectroscopy for Quantifying Gas Emissions, Thesis for the Degree of Licentiate of Engineering, Chalmer, Sweden, 2005, Exhibit 12. 70FluxSense Report, Exhibit 11, Table 43, pdf 95.
71FluxSense Report, Exhibit 11, p. 94 and Kihlman 2005, Exhibit 12. 18 The high tank emissions found in the FluxSense report, compared with calculations based on the EPA TANKS 4.09 model, is consistent with monitoring results reported elsewhere for refinery tank emissions, discussed supra. The TANKS model or the Applicant’s use of this model (e.g., selection of input parameters, such as temperature, vapor pressure, vapor molecular weight) significantly underestimates VOC and benzene emissions from tanks and thus should not be used to estimate tank VOC and benzene (or other HAP) emissions. Other studies, reviewed supra based on real-time monitoring, have reached similar conclusions.

3.1. Revised Tank VOC Emissions
As demonstrated above, the IS/ND significantly underestimated VOC emissions from storage tanks by relying on the TANKS model. A more realistic estimate can be made using studies that relied on mobile optical measurements. These studies indicate the method used to estimate VOC emissions from the new tanks in the IS/ND underestimates VOC emissions by factors of 1.5 to 132. Two approaches are considered here for correcting the tank emissions.

First, assuming the midpoint of the measured range of factors of 1.5 to 132 underestimates, or a factor of 67, tank VOC emissions would increase from 9.7 lb/day to about 650 lb/day, which greatly exceeds the significance threshold of 55 lb/day. The IS/ND incorrectly reports the VOC significance threshold for operational emissions as 75 lb/day.72 However, this is the construction significance threshold. The operational VOC significance threshold is 55 lb/day.73 Thus, VOC emissions from the new tanks are highly significant, requiring mitigation.

Second, using only the measurements for internal floating roof tanks, which are proposed for the Project, VOC emissions were underestimated by a factor of 121 in the studies reviewed in Comment 3.74 In this case, VOC emissions would increase from 9.7 lb/day to about 1,174 lb/day, which also greatly exceeds the significance threshold of 55 lb/day.

Third, even assuming a more modest underestimation factor of 6.2—the average factor found by the FluxSense study commissioned by SCAQMD—VOC emissions from

72IS/ND, p. 4-10, pdf 34.
73SCAQMD, South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds; http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/ default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 74Hoyt and Raun, Table 4.
19 the tanks would be 60 lb/day.75 This amount still exceeds the operational significance threshold of 55 lb/day and requires mitigation of VOC emissions impacts.

In sum, VOC emissions from the tanks are highly significant. VOC emissions from the tanks are even higher than estimated here because this estimate excludes roof landing, degassing, and cleaning emissions, discussed in Comment 3.2.

3.2. Roof Landing, Degassing, and Cleaning Emissions Were Omitted As discussed in Comment 3.1, the IS/ND estimated VOC emissions from storage tanks using EPA’s model, TANKS 4.0.9d. However, this model only estimates a portion of the emissions from storage tanks: rim seal losses, withdrawal losses, deck fitting losses, and deck seam losses. It does not estimate roof landing losses, inspection losses, degassing, and cleaning emissions.76 These emissions must be separately calculated using AP-42, Section 7.1.77 The IS/ND is silent on these emissions. I did not find these calculations in any of the IS/ND or PRA documents nor any requirement to control them in the Permits To Construct (PTC) per Rule 1149, Subsection 7.1.3.2.2, Roof Landings. Further, while SCAQMD Rule 1149 seeks to reduce “storage tank and pipeline cleaning and degassing,” it does not eliminate them.78 Thus, the IS/ND further underestimated tank emissions by failing to include all sources of tank VOC emissions.

The Project involves two new internal floating roof storage tanks. These tanks do not have a self-supporting roof. Rather, the roof floats on the surface of the liquid inside the tank, reducing evaporative losses during normal operations. However, when the tank is emptied, the roof sits on deck legs at the bottom of the tank and is uncontrolled.

Figure 6 shows a diagram of a traditional internal floating roof tank and the location of the deck legs.

75FluxSense Report, Exhibit 11, Table 43, pdf 95. Revised tank emissions = 6.2 x 9.7 = 60 lb/day. 76U.S. EPA, TANKS Software Frequent Questions: How can I estimate emissions from roof landing losses in the TANKS program?; https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/faq/tanksfaq.html#14. 77Ibid.
78SCAQMD Rule 1149, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/rule-1149.pdf. 20 Figure 6: Traditional Internal Floating Roof Tank79

As EPA explains, when a tank is emptied to the point that the roof no longer floats on the liquid but lands on the deck legs, evaporative losses occur:

Roof landing losses:When using floating roof tanks, the roof floats on the surface of the liquid inside the tank and reduces evaporative losses during normal operation. However, when the tank is emptied to the point that the roof lands on deck legs, there is a period where the roof is not floating and other methods must be used to estimate emissions. These emissions continue until the tank is refilled to a sufficient level to again float the roof. Therefore, these emission estimate calculations are applicable each time there is a landing of the floating roof.80
These losses are called “roof landing losses” and consist of standing idle losses and filling losses, which EPA explains as below:

Standing idle losses: After the floating roof is landed and the liquid level in the tank continues to drop, a vacuum is created which could cause the floating roof to collapse. To prevent damage and to equalize the pressure,

79From: EPA, AP-42, 7.1 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks, Figure 7.1.4, November 2006; https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/old/ap42/ch07/s01/final/c07s01_2006.pdf. 80EPA, AP-42, 7.1 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks, op. cit., p. 7.1-27.

21 a breather vent is actuated. Then, a vapor space is formed between the floating roof and the liquid. The breather vent remains open until the roof is again floated, so whenever the roof is landed, vapor can be lost through this vent.81
Filling losses: When a floating roof tank is refilled, there are additional emissions resulting from the roof being landed. These losses are called “filling losses” and continue until the liquid reaches the level of the floating roof. The first contributor to filling losses is called the “arrival” component. As liquid flows into the tank, the vapor space between the liquid and the floating roof is decreased. The displaced vapors are expelled through the breather vent. Once the roof is refloated on the liquid surface, the breather vent closes. The second contributor to filling losses is called the “generated” component. As the incoming liquid evaporates, additional vapors will be formed in the vapor space and will also be expelled through the breather vent.82
The EPA has explained that the TANKS model used to estimate tank VOC emissions does not include roof landings and recommended that they be estimated with the equations in AP-42.83 In other words, the EPA TANKS model estimates evaporative emissions for normal operations only—that is, it assumes that the floating tank roof is always floating.84 However, when a tank is emptied to the point that the roof no longer floats on the liquid but lands, evaporative losses occur. These losses are uncontrolled tank emissions and can be larger than routine controlled emissions. They are called “roof landing losses” and are estimated using AP-42, Section 7.1.3.4.85 The IS/ND did not include these emissions because they are not included in the TANKS program.86 I cannot estimate them because all of the inputs required to make the calculations are not provided in the IS/ND. Thus, the IS/ND fails as an informational document under CEQA.
81Ibid., internal citations omitted.
82Ibid., p. 7.1-32, internal citations omitted.
83U.S. EPA, TANKS Software Frequent Questions; https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/faq/tanksfaq.html. 84EPA, TANKS Software Frequent Questions, updated September 2016, http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ faq/tanksfaq.html. (“How can I estimate emissions from roof landing losses in the TANKS program? … In November 2006, Section 7.1 of AP42 was updated with subsection 7.1.3.2.2 Roof Landings. The TANKS program has not been updated with these new algorithms for internal floating roof tanks. It is based on the 1997 version of section 7.1.”).
85AP-42, Section 7.1.3.4, https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch07/final/ch07s01.pdf. 86See, e.g., U.S. EPA, TANKS Software Frequent Questions, “How Can I Estimate Emissions from Roof Landing Losses in the TANKS Program?, https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/faq/tanksfaq.html#13. 22 The EPA, in a recent Notice of Violation (“NOV”) issued to a rail terminal permitted by the SJVAPCD, recognized roof landing losses as emissions that must be included to determine the Potential to Emit (“PTE”) of a source and concluded that “[a] proper Engineering Evaluation includes roof landing losses in the PTE for a petroleum storage tank.”87
Tank roof landing losses are large, typically comprising about a quarter (but up to 60%) of total tank emissions.88,89 Based on the estimated VOC emissions determined for the Project’s two tanks using the TANKS model of 1,241.38 lb/yr per tank,90tank roof landing emissions for the Project’s two new storage tanks can thus be estimated ranging from 620 lbs to 1,490 lbs for the two tanks per cleaning event.91 Thus, in years in which the tanks are cleaned, the IS/ND substantially underestimates tank VOC emissions, related health impacts, and the quantity of ERCs required to offset Project VOC emissions.

In addition, “degassing and cleaning losses” occur when tanks are drained and degassed for inspection and/or cleaning. These include both roof landing emissions, complete tank degassing, and emissions from cleaning out accumulated sludge. These

87EPA, In the Matter of Bakersfield Crude Terminal LLC, Plains Marketing, L.P., Plains All American Inc., Taft California, Proceedings Under Section 113(a), Clean Air Act, as Amended, Docket No. R9-15-08, Findings and Notice of Violation, April 30, 2015 (“Plains NOV”) (Exhibit 13), Paragraph 26 (“The PTE calculations in the 2012 Application Review did not include emissions referred to as “roof landing losses” for internal floating roof tanks. Roof landing losses occur regularly in the petroleum industry when internal floating roof tanks are emptied to the point that the floating roof touches down on its support legs. Roof landings of internal floating roof tanks result in extra emissions of VOCs occurring compared to those emissions when the internal roof is floating on the liquid in the tank.”) and Paragraph 46 (“The PTE calculations used in the 2012 Application Review to determine the Facility’s minor source status incorrectly underestimated the emissions from the floating roof tanks installed at the Facility. As set forth in the 2012 ATCs for the storage tanks at the Facility and as experienced in the petroleum industry, internal floating roof tanks are regularly emptied to the point that the floating roof touches down on its support legs. In a roof landing event, substantial amounts of VOC emissions occur, and these emissions are referred to as “roof landing losses.” A proper engineering analysis includes roof landing losses in the PTE for a petroleum storage tank. The PTE calculations used to determine the Facility’s minor source status omitted roof landing losses for the internal floating roof tanks.”), http://earthjustice.org/sites/ default/files/files/NOV%20Bakersfield%20Crude%20Terminal%20LLC.pdf. 88See, for example, Plains Marketing, L.P., New Source Review Permit Initial Application, Corpus Christi Dock and Storage Terminal, September 2014, Exhibit 14.
89See, for example, Enbridge Energy, LP, Letter to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Re: Superior Terminal Enhancement Project Permit Application, October 9, 2012, Att. C, Table 2-2 Exhibit 15; (roof landing loss in lb VOC/year)/(total loss in lb VOC/year) = 0.181-0.617. 90PTC Application, Exhibit 1, Table 3-2 and Appendix B, TANKS 4.0.9d output, Exhibit 1. 91The increase in VOC emissions due to roof landing emissions can be estimated from the TANKS 4.0.9d output (Exhibit 1) as: [1,241.38/4]2= 621 lbs; [1,241.38*0.6]2= 1,490 lb. 23 emissions are essentially uncontrolled tank emissions92and can be larger than normal operating emissions. The City of Houston, with EPA funding, performed a DIAL study at a large refinery in Texas in 2010 and found tank cleaning emitted 4,000 lb/hr of alkane VOCs.93 The IS/ND is silent on these emissions, which were not included in emission estimates. These emissions can be controlled using special degassing equipment.94 The IS/ND does not contain any commitment to use degassing equipment for tank cleaning.

The EPA recommends methods to estimate emissions from degassing, cleaning, and roof landing losses.95 The method for estimating emissions depends on the construction of the tank—for example, the flatness of the tank bottom and the position of the withdrawal line (the so-called liquid heel). Degassing, cleaning, and roof landing losses continue until the tank is refilled to a sufficient level to again float the tank roof.

Total VOC emissions from floating roof tanks during a roof landing are the sum of standing idle losses and filling losses. They can be estimated using formulas contained in AP-42, Chapter 7.1, Organic Liquid Storage Tanks, Section 7.1.3.2.2. These emissions are routinely included in emission inventories. They are required to be reported, for example, in Texas.96 The IS/ND does not mention these emissions or include emissions from cleaning, storing, or processing removed sludge. I cannot estimate them as the inputs required to make these calculations are in the record. Thus, VOC emissions are underestimated, and the IS/ND fails as an informational document under CEQA.

3.3. Other Omitted Sources of VOC Emissions
There are several other sources of emissions that were omitted from the IS/ND’s air quality analysis. These include:

Water draw tank emissions
Truck loading rack disconnect emissions
Emissions from drops during loading

92Ibid.
93Hoyt and Raun, 2015, p. 1024.
94See, for example, Envent Corp., Tank & Vessel Degassing; http://www.enventcorporation.com/ services/degassing-vapor-control/tank-vessel-degassing/. 95U.S. EPA, TANKS Software Frequent Questions: “How Can I Estimate Emissions from Degassing and Cleaning Operation During a Tank Turnaround? And How Can I Estimate Emissions from Roof Landing Losses in the TANKS Program?”; http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/faq/tanksfaq.html#13. 96Memorandum from Dan Eden, Deputy Director, Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration; David C. Schanbacher, Chief Engineer; and John Steib, Deputy Director, Office of Compliance and Enforcement, Re: Air Emissions During Tank Floating Roof Landings, December 5, 2006, http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/permitting/air/memos/tank_landing_final.pdf. 24 Emissions from sumps at the loading rack
Emissions from fugitive components (e.g., valves) at the loading rack Emissions from changes in products stored in the repurposed tanks Emissions from increases in repurposed tanks throughputs Emissions from ground and marine transportation97
Further, crude oil typically contains small amounts of water, which is separated from the crude oil and accumulates in the bottom of storage tanks. This accumulated water, referred to as water draw, is typically transferred from the crude oil storage tanks into a smaller water draw surge tank for processing prior to disposal. Over time, a thick layer of crude oil forms in the water draw surge tank. The water draw surge tank and processing of wastewaters from it emit VOCs and HAPs.

The IS/ND does not disclose or estimate emissions from any of these additional sources, failing as an informational document under CEQA.

3.4. Offsets Are Not Valid CEQA Mitigation
The IS/ND, Table 4.3-1 indicates VOC emissions would be offset, implying offsets are mitigation. However, for several reasons the IS/ND cannot rely on offsets to mitigate air quality impacts because they are not valid CEQA mitigation unless they reduce the emissions at the time and location where the impact occurs.

First, historically banked ERCs are part of the CEQA baseline. The emission reductions are already accounted for in the ambient air quality at the project site at the time of project proposal. Increases in emissions from the Project will increase emissions relative to the existing baseline. Thus, purchasing ERCs would not reduce, offset, or mitigate increases in Project emissions, as the reductions occurred historically, before the Project was conceived and are part of the baseline.

Second, historically banked ERCs are legally distinct from emission reductions required under CEQA to mitigate new increases in emissions. Thus, the ERC concept is not consistent with the CEQA mandate to mitigate actual impacts on local receptors.

The emissions of VOCs will increase in the area where the new Project emissions are released. The impact of this increased pollution on local sensitive receptors must be evaluated under CEQA and mitigated at the time and place that it occurs.

97Project Memorandum from Will Walters, Aspen Environmental Group, to Allyson Teramoto, Port of Long Beach, Re: Ribost Tanks Project Screening Air Quality Analysis, September 14, 2018: “The new tanks impact on ground and marine transportation were not completely known at the time of this analysis.

These effects need to be fully determined to ensure that there would be no substantial increases in these operating emissions.” Exhibit 18.
25 On a common sense level, it is not logical to assume that ERCs, which frequently have been banked decades ago, will do anything to mitigate impacts from local emission increases, especially in a region plagued with serious and ongoing air quality violations. The VOC offset proposed for the Project was issued December 14, 1993,9827 years ago. Instead, this approach aggravates the exposure of residents to extraordinarily unhealthy ozone in the local area.

Therefore, the use of ERCs is not valid mitigation under CEQA. ERCs are not an acceptable substitute for performing local air quality analyses and mitigating the local impacts themselves. A revised CEQA document should clearly state that the use of offsets to mitigate air quality impacts, except those offsets that occur at the project site at the time of project startup, are not valid mitigation. Instead, conventional mitigation is required to reduce the significant ROG emissions.

4. HEALTH IMPACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT
The IS/ND concludes that “operation emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and operation impacts would be less than significant.”99 This conclusion is based on a cancer health risk assessment (HRA) prepared by the SCAQMD for the new tanks that concluded cancer health risks were well below the significance threshold of 10 x 10-6 (ten in one million exposed). This significance threshold assumes that T-BACT is used.100The IS/ND further concludes that other emission sources—loading rack, fuel oil vapors, trucks—would make negligible contributions to the cancer risk and excluded them from the HRA analysis.101 However, there are two problems with the IS/ND’s analysis, which result in a significant underestimate of health impacts.

First, the HRA underestimated VOC emissions and by extension, HAP emissions. Assuming VOC emissions were underestimated by a factor of 67, as explained in Comment 4.1, health impacts are significant.

Second, the HRA failed to evaluate the health impacts from increases in ambient ozone concentrations in the vicinity of the Project due to increases in VOC emissions.

Comment 4.1.

98SCAQMD, Certificate of Proof for Registered Emission Reduction Credit, Certificate No. AQ001032, Reissued to Ribost Terminal, LLC, Issued December 5, 2019. Exhibit 16. 99IS/ND, pdf 36.
100SCAQMD, Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1 and 212, Version 8.1, September 1, 2017, p. 3; http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/permitting/rule-1401-risk-assessment/ riskassessproc-v8-1.pdf?sfvrsn=12.
101IS/ND, pdf 36.
26 4.1. Health Impacts from Speciated Tank HAP Emissions Are Significant
The VOC emissions discussed in Comment 2.1 are comprised of many individual organic compounds, some of which are carcinogens or cause acute or chronic health impacts. Health risk assessments typically evaluate the impact of these individual compounds, collectively as cancer risk or individually as acute and chronic health risks.

The IS/ND relied on the HRA contained in the Application for a Permit to Construct (PTC Application),102 asserting this HRA is conservative because the TAC emission rates are based on gasoline rather than crude oil.103 However, there are several major problems with the HRA in the PTC Application, which significantly underestimate health impacts. When these errors are corrected, cancer risks are significant and unmitigated.

First, gasoline is not a conservative assumption because the Permits to Construct for the two tanks allow the storage of “crude oil or non-gasoline petroleum products having a Reid vapor pressure not to exceed 10.0 pounds per square inch.”104 The Reid vapor pressure of gasoline is 10 pounds per square inch. Thus, regardless of what it’s called, the tanks can store products with a vapor pressure equal to that of gasoline. The vapor pressure ultimately determines how much of a chemical will be emitted. Many of the products that will be stored in the new and repurposed tanks have higher benzene concentrations that assumed based on gasoline.

Second, the HRA failed to evaluate the nearest sensitive receptor. The PTC Application assumed the distance to the nearest residence is 925 meters (3,034 feet or 0.6 miles).105 However, the IS/ND indicates the nearest residence is 0.5 miles away.106 The SCAQMD Permit to Construct (PTC) evaluation also assumed the closest residential receptor is approximately 2,640 feet away or 0.5 miles and the nearest school, Edison Elementary School, is 2,916 feet away (0.6 miles).107 My review of the Google map of the Project area indicates that there are many other sensitive receptors, including schools, parks and child development centers, some closer than disclosed in the IS/ND.

Exhibit 7.

102PTC Application, Exhibit 1, Appendix C – Health Risk Assessment. 103IS/ND, pdf 36.
104Permit to Construct, Tank No. TK-1 and Permit to Construct, Tank No. TK-2, Conditions 4. 105PTC Application, Exhibit 1, Appendix C, pdf 29.
106IS/ND, p. 4-10, 4-31, pdf 34, 55.
107PTC Application, Exhibit 1, pdf 2, Toxic Emissions.
27 The IS/ND asserts it relied on the SCAQMD’s health risk assessment, reporting the maximum cancer risks for a residential receptor of 1.85 E-7108 and did not report the risk for the nearest commercial receptor. The SCAQMD’s Application Evaluation, on the other hand, reported a maximum cancer risk of 1.85 E-7 for the nearest residential receptor and 6.04 E-8 for the nearest commercial receptor.109 Third, the VOC emissions from the storage tanks were underestimated by up to a factor of 121. Comment 3. Assuming VOC emissions were underestimated by a factor of 121, this would increase the estimated cancer risk from 1.85 E-7 for the nearest residential receptor to 2.24 E-5 (22 in one million).110 As the cancer significance threshold is 10 in one million, cancer risks are significant. Assuming VOC emissions were underestimated by a factor of 67 would yield an estimated cancer risk of about 12 in one million, also a significant impact.111
Fourth, the SCAQMD FluxSense study concluded that benzene emissions from refineries, which account for 94% of the cancer risk,112 were underestimated by an average factor of 34, ranging from 3.2 to 202,113 compared to calculated values using methods similar to those used in the PTC Application. Assuming an average underestimate of benzene by a factor of 34 coupled with an average underestimate in tank VOC emissions of 121 (Comment 3), the cancer risk would increase from 1.85 E-7 to 8.10 E-4 (810 in one million),114 which is highly significant, exceeding the cancer significance threshold of 10 E-6 (10 in one million) by a factor of 81.

Alternatively, real-time measurements at 23 tanks and tank groups in the SCAQMD reported average benzene emissions of 0.11 lb/hr per tank115, which is 65 times higher than the 1.70 E-3 lb/hr benzene assumed in the PTC Application’s cancer 108IS/MND, p. 4-12, pdf 36.
109ATC Application Evaluation, p. 2.
110Increase in cancer risk due to underestimate in tank VOC emissions = (1.85E-7)(121) = 2.24E-5 (22.4 in one million).
111Increase in cancer risk due to underestimate in tank VOC emissions by a factor of 67 = (1.85E-7)(67) =

1.24E-5 (12.4 in one million).
112Fraction of cancer risk due to benzene, based on Application, pdf 33: (4.93E-8/5.22E-8)100 = 94%. 113SCAQMD, FluxSense 2015, Table 43, p. 94.
114Increase in cancer risk due to underestimate in tank VOC emissions and benzene concentration = (1.85E-7)(34)(121)/0.94 = 8.10E-4 (810 in one million). 115Average tank benzene based on FluxSense Report, Table 38: [(1.2 kg/hr)/23 tanks][2.2 lb/kg] = 0.11 lb/hr.
28 risk assessment at R1.116 The revised cancer risk in this case would be 68 E-6 (68 in one million), which is also highly significant.117
Finally, real-time measurements summarized in Table 4 found that benzene from internal floating roof tanks was underestimated by factors of 6 to 254.118 Using the midpoint of this range, 130, the revised cancer risk would be 129 E-6 (129 in one million),119which is also highly significant.

In sum, cancer health risks are significant, requiring mitigation.

4.2. Cumulative Air Quality and Public Health Impacts Are Significant
Mandatory findings of significance are required if a project has impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As defined by Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.”120 The IS/MND concluded that all cumulative impacts were less than significant without identifying any cumulative projects or conducting a cumulative impact analysis. Instead, the IS/MND asserts that the Project’s operational air quality impacts are not “cumulatively considerable due to the relatively nominal level and area of impact, highly developed industrial surroundings, and temporary nature of the proposed project.”121 As to construction, it asserts that “construction activities are minor...”122 The IS/ND further argues that because the Project’s air quality and greenhouse gas impact would be less than significant and the Project, as well as all other current projects in the region, would comply with applicable SCAQMD standards, recommendations, and regulation, designed to limit air quality impacts.123 This violates both CEQA and SCAQMD guidance.

116Application, Appendix C, p. 4, Emission Calculations benzene emissions = 1.70E-3 lb/hr. 117Increase in cancer risk due to underestimate in tank benzene emissions = (9.92E-7)(68) = 6.75E-5 (67.5 in one million).
118Hoyt and Raun, Table 4.
119Increase in cancer risk due to underestimate in tank benzene emissions = (9.92E-7)(130) = 1.29E-4 (129 in one million).
120CEQA Guidelines §15065(a)(3).
121IS/ND, p. 4-65, pdf 89.
122IS/MND, p. 4-65, pdf 89.
123IS/ND, p. 4-65, pdf 89.
29 Under CEQA, “[c]umulative impacts refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.”124 “The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects.”125 Further, “the cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.”126 According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, compliance with a significance threshold “does not relieve a lead agency of the obligation to consider substantial evidence indicating the project’s environmental effects may still be significant.”127 Thus, while construction air quality impacts are individually minor and operational air quality impacts for all pollutants but VOCs (Comment 3) are individually minor, they are cumulatively significant when considered with other reasonably foreseeable projects.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), where the Project is located, has provided guidance on an acceptable approach to address cumulative air quality impacts. This guidance states: “As Lead Agency, the AQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR … Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable.”128
Comment 3 demonstrates that VOC emissions from Project operation are significant. Comment 4 demonstrates that cancer risks from Project operation are significant. Thus, under the SCAQMD guidance, air quality impacts and public health impacts are per se cumulatively significant, requiring the preparation of an EIR.

Regardless, there are other cumulative projects in the general area which, when considered together with the Project, are cumulatively significant. The two existing tanks that will be repurposed for new uses by Marathon is an adjacent cumulative project. The Los Angeles International Airport, for example, is planning a major

124CEQA Guidelines §15355.
125CEQA Guidelines §15355(a).
126CEQA Guidelines §15355(b).
127CEQA Guidelines §15064(b)(2).
128SCAQMD, White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution, Appendix D – Cumulative Impact Analysis Requirements Pursuant to CEQA, August 2003. 30 expansion.129 The area where the World Oil Project is located will be affected by emissions from LAX expansion construction, which is anticipated to occur over 7 years between 2021 and 2028130and increased ground and air traffic passing near the Project site. Further, all of the emissions from the LAX expansion will be released into the same air basin, adversely affecting air quality in the vicinity of the Project. Thus, cumulative operational VOC and health impacts are significant.

4.3. The IS/ND Fails to Demonstrate That the Increase in VOC Emissions Will Not Cause a Violation or Make Significantly Worse an Existing Violation of VOCs, Resulting in Significant Health Impacts
VOC emissions are converted into ozone in the atmosphere. Ozone, the main component of smog, is formed in the atmosphere from precursor pollutants rather than being directly emitted. Ozone forms as a result of VOCs and NOx reacting in the presence of sunlight. Ozone damages lung tissue and reduces lung function, affecting people with impaired respiratory systems as well as healthy children and adults.131 The South Coast Air Basin where the Project is located is in extreme nonattainment with the federal 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards and in nonattainment with the state 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards.132 In fact, the area where the Project is located has the worst ozone pollution in the entire United States.133 The number of days that ozone standards were exceeded in the Project’s zip code are summarized in Figure 7. The significant VOC emissions from the Project will aggravate existing violations of ambient air quality standards, resulting in significant public health impacts.

129City of Los Angeles, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Airfield & Terminal Modernization Project, October 2020, https://cloud1lawa.app.box.com/s/bracrr7k700eb3y7x37x02u19bsec3r5. 130LAX DEIR, Section 4.1.1.1.2.1, p. 4.1.1-5.
131U.S. EPA, Ground-level Ozone Pollution; https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone- pollution/ground-level-ozone-basics.
132National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin; http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf. 133American Lung Association, State of the Air, Most Polluted Cities; https://www.stateoftheair.org/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html. 31 Figure 7: Number of Days Air Quality in Zip Code 90802 Exceeded Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standards134
The Los Angeles–Long Beach area (zip code 90802), where the Project is located, has remained at the top of the worst ozone pollution list for 20 out of the 21 years that the American Lung Association (ALA) has been ranking pollution in its annual State of the Air Report.135 Four groups of people are especially vulnerable to the effects of breathing ozone: (1) children and teens; (2) anyone 65 and older; (3) people with existing lung diseases, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (also known as COPD, which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis); and (4) people who work or exercise outdoors.136 In the Project area (Los Angeles–Long Beach) in 2020, these included 10 million people with preexisting conditions that were at risk from ozone pollution, plus 15 million otherwise sensitive individuals (people of color and those living in poverty) who likely live and/or work outdoors:
4,270,638 under 18;
2,583,214 that are 65 and over;
263,657 with pediatric asthma;
1,234,623 with adult asthma;
662,425 with COPD;
956,017 with cardiovascular disease;
134American Lung Association, State of the Air; https://www.stateoftheair.org/city-rankings/states/ california/los-angeles.html.
135American Lung Association, State of the Air, 2020 (ALA 2020); https://www.stateoftheair.org/assets/ SOTA-2020.pdf, p. 7 (“Los Angeles remains at the top of the list of most polluted cities for ozone, as it has been for all but one of the 21 reports…); see also Laura Parker, See the Best and Worst Places for Breathable Air in the U.S., National Geographic, April 19, 2017,http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ 2017/04/ozone-pollution-city-rankings-particles-Clean-Air-Act/. 136American Lung Association, Who Is At Risk from Breathing Ozone?; https://www.lung.org/clean- air/outdoors/what-makes-air-unhealthy/ozone.

32 13,006,958 people of color; and
2,440,945 living in poverty.137
Further, the Project is very close to many facilities where people will be exercising outdoors, including parks (Drake Park, Cesar E. Chavez Park, Golden Park), a soccer field (Drake Park Soccer Field, and schools (Edison Child Development Center, Edison Elementary School, Cesar Chavez Elementary School).138 Further, a major study found evidence that people with lung cancer faced greater risk from ozone and other outdoor air pollutants. The 2016 study tracked the air pollution levels from 1988 to 2011 experienced by more than 350,000 cancer patients in California. The researchers found that ozone and other air pollutants shortened their survival.139 Numerous studies, cited in ALA 2020, document the serious public health impacts of ozone. Thus, it is critical that the huge increase in ozone precursors that will result from this Project be fully mitigated.

In addition to these sensitive populations in the general area, the IS/ND identified nearby sensitive receptors, including the Edison Elementary School, located about 0.5 miles east of the project site; the Cesar Chavez Elementary school, located about 0.6 miles east;140and the nearest residence on West Chester Place, about 0.5 miles east of the project site.141 Google Maps indicates other nearby sensitive receptors, including Golden Park, Cesar E. Chavez Park, Drake Park, Drake Park Soccer Field, Edison Child Development Center, and numerous additional homes.142 See Exhibit 17. Thus, the IS/ND has failed to disclose all of the sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project, failing as an informational document under CEQA.

The IS/ND concluded that health impacts of “non-speciated VOC emissions” would not be significant because its estimated VOC emissions are below the 137American Lung Association, State of the Air, 2020 (ALA 2020); https://www.stateoftheair.org/assets/ SOTA-2020.pdf.
138Exhibit 17.
139S. P. Eckel and others, Air Pollution Affects Lung Cancer Survival, Thorax, v. 71, 2016, pp. 891-898; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5400105/.
140IS/ND, pdf 55.
141IS/ND, pdf 66 and 67, Table 4.13-1.
142Google Maps:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/911+W+Chester+Pl,+Long+Beach,+CA+90813/@33.7762551,- 118.2027098,17z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x80dd314cf8149c3b:0x697be6b65c56edb5!8m2!3d33.777352!4d- 118.2030209.
33 SCAQMD’s daily significant thresholds.143 However, the IS/ND significantly underestimated VOC emissions, which exceed the SCAQMD’s daily operational significance threshold for VOCs. Comment 3.

Further, the IS/ND did not quantify how much ozone these emissions would create. Although the IS/ND explained that ozone can cause health impacts, this information is meaningless because the IS/ND did not estimate how much ozone the Project would generate, making it impossible for the public to translate VOC emission estimates into adverse health impacts. The only way to evaluate the health impacts of unspeciated VOCs is by conducting air dispersion modeling to determine if the Project’s emissions cause a new violation or contribute to an existing violation of state or federal ozone standards.

In December 2018, the California Supreme Court determined that CEQA requires that the potential for a project’s emissions to affect human health in the air basin must be disclosed when a project’s criteria air pollutant emissions exceed applicable significance thresholds or explain why such further evaluation is infeasible.144 While the IS/ND concluded VOC emissions were not significant, as explained in Comment 3, the IS/ND significantly underestimated operational VOC emissions, which are highly significant. These significant VOC emissions must be converted into specific human health effects in the air basin. At least three recent draft environmental impact reports (DEIRs) have assessed the human health impacts from significant emissions of ozone and PM2.5 precursors.145,146,147 Two of these are in the SCAQMD.

The Health Risk Assessment failed to evaluate the health impacts from ozone pollution,148 thus failing as an informational document under CEQA. There are numerous sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project, notably children that would 143IS/ND, pdf 36.
144Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 202, 521 (also referred to as “the Friant Ranch Decision”).
145City of San Jose, Draft Environmental Impact Report for Amendment to Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport Master Plan, November 2019, Section 4.3.5.2, Health Effects Assessment for Criteria Pollutants, pp. 89-94; https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=61640. 146City of Inglewood, Inglewood Basketball and Entertainment Center Project Draft Environmental Impact Report, pp. 3.2-61 to 3.2-63, December 2019; https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/60191- 3/attachment/a-wQrPYfgqX6rH7PlozmRPEvEaRCdDy9wtEOIK6Lkzx9y2kM5Y76yA2pvL0h1 Nhm4o1xu79V9PavU-kk0.
147City of Los Angeles, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Airfield & Terminal Modernization Project, October 2020; https://cloud1lawa.app.box.com/s/ bracrr7k700eb3y7x37x02u19bsec3r5.
148IS/ND, pdf 36.
34 be exposed to increased ambient ozone concentrations. Figure 7. The American Lung Association, in its 2020 State of the Air report, summarized recent research on health impacts to children that would be present in these facilities due to ozone exposure. The impacts include:149
premature death;
developmental harm;
reproductive harm;
asthma attack;
wheezing and coughing;
shortness of breath;
cardiovascular harm;
increased risk of susceptibility to respiratory infections; increased susceptibility to pulmonary inflammation;
lung tissue redness and swelling;
increased admission to hospitals for asthma, with younger children and those from low-income families more likely than others to need hospital admission;
some children with certain genes are more likely to develop asthma as adolescents; and
lower birth weight and decreased lung function in newborns.

The IS/ND does not contain any analysis of the health impacts of ozone. As demonstrated in Comment 3, VOC impacts are significant. VOC is an ozone precursor.

Thus, the IS/ND fails as an informational document under CEQA. Because the corrected VOC emissions exceed the SCAQMD’s significance threshold for operational emissions by factors of 6 to 121, it is reasonable to assume that ambient concentrations of ozone would cause or contribute to violations of federal and/or state ambient air quality standards, resulting in a significant health impact. Therefore, absent effective mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, an EIR must be prepared.

149ALA, State of the Air, 2020, pdf 41-42.

EXHIBIT B

4943-010acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
JAVIER J. CASTRO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
KENDRA D. HARTMANN*
DARIEN K. KEY
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
TARA C. MESSING

Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

*Not admitted in California.

Licensed in Colorado.

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444-6201
FAX: (916) 444-6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080-7037
___________

TEL: (650) 589-1660
FAX: (650) 589-5062
[email protected]

printed on recycled paper

October 28, 2021

Via Email Only:

Board of Harbor Commissioners
City of Long Beach
Matthew Arms
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Re: Agenda Item No. 1H: World Oil Tank Installation Project (SCH:
2020100119)

Dear Commissioners, Mr. Arms:

On behalf of Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (“SAFER CA”), we submit these comments on Agenda Item No. 1H in response to the Staff Report and the Port’s responses to our comments on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (“IS/ND”) for the World Oil Tank Installation Project (“Project”) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)1 by the Port of Long Beach (“Port”). The Project is proposed by Ribost Terminal, LLC dba World Oil Terminals (“Applicant”) and seeks to construct two new 25,000-barrel petroleum storage tanks at the existing World Oil Terminal located at the Port.2

The terminal is 261,000 square feet (about 6 acres) and contains seven existing petroleum tanks of various sizes totaling a capacity of 502,000 barrels.3 Three tanks contain crude oil and serve World Oil Refinery through the terminal loading rack, while the other four tanks are leased to Marathon Petroleum and Glencore for the purpose of storing fuel oil received and shipped via pipeline.4 The new tanks would be installed in the northwest corner of the existing petroleum bulk

1 Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“C.C.R.”) §§ 15000 et seq. 2 IS/ND, p. 2-1.
3 IS/ND, p. 1-1.
4 IS/ND, p. 2-3.

October 28, 2021

4943-010acp

printed on recycled paper
station and terminal.5 Construction is estimated to start in September 2021 and last approximately 10 months.6

The two tanks would provide additional storage capacity of petroleum for refining and distribution and would make two of its existing larger tanks available for lease by third-party vendors.7 The IS/ND estimates a 10 percent increase in truck trips, as well as an increase in average barrel throughput of fuel oil, but not of crude oil, over existing operations at the facility.8

This letter contains the rebuttal comments of SAFER CA and its technical consultant based on review of the revised Final IS/ND and responses to our comments submitted for the Draft IS/ND. Based on our review of the IS/ND and responses to comments, we have concluded that the Project as it stands fails to comply with CEQA. The majority of our original comments remain outstanding, as the Port failed to respond meaningfully to nearly all of our concerns. The Project continues to poses significant impacts to air quality, and the Port has inappropriately attempted to avoid its duty to prepare a legally adequate environmental impact report (“EIR”) that analyzes and mitigates all potentially significant impacts likely to result from the Project. Furthermore, it relies on reports and analyses that have not been disclosed to the public, prohibiting independent review of its evaluations and conclusions and frustrating the purpose of CEQA.

These comments were prepared with the assistance of environmental health and air pollution expert Phyllis Fox, Ph.D., P.E. Comments and curriculum vitae of Dr. Fox are attached to this letter as Exhibit A.
9 5 IS/ND, p. 2-1.
6 IS/ND, p. 2-1.
7 IS/ND, p. 2-4.
8 IS/ND, p. 2-6.
9 Exhibit A: Rebuttal to Responses to Comments on the Initial Study & Negative Declaration for the World Oil Tank Installation Project by Phyllis Fox (October 27, 2021) (“Fox Comments”). Dr. Fox’s prior comments from November 20, 2020 are cited at “Fox 11/20/20 Comments.”

October 28, 2021

4943-010acp

printed on recycled paper
For the reasons discussed herein, and in the attached expert comments, SAFER CA urges the Port to reject the Final IS/ND and remedy its deficiencies by preparing a legally adequate EIR to be circulated for public review and comment.10

I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST

SAFER CA advocates for safe processes at California refineries and fuel transport and distribution facilities to protect the health, safety, standard of life and economic interests of its members. For this reason, SAFER CA has a strong interest in enforcing environmental laws, such as CEQA, which require the disclosure of potential environmental impacts of, and ensure safe operations and processes for, California’s fuel production, storage, and transport projects. Failure to adequately address the environmental impacts of renewable or traditional fuel and other refinery product transport, storage, and refining processes poses a substantial threat to the environment, worker health, surrounding communities and the local economy.

Refineries and fuel transport, storage, and distribution facilities are uniquely dangerous and capable of generating significant fires and the emission of hazardous and toxic substances that adversely impact air quality, water quality, biological resources, and public health and safety. Absent adequate disclosure and mitigation of hazardous materials and processes, refinery and fuel terminal workers and surrounding communities may be subject to chronic health problems and the risk of bodily injury and death. Additionally, rail transport of fuel and other refinery products has been involved in major explosions, causing vast economic damage, significant emissions of air contaminants and carcinogens and, in some cases, severe injuries and fatalities.

SAFER CA supports the sustainable development of fuel resources in California. However, poorly planned refinery and fuel distribution facility projects can adversely impact the economic wellbeing of people who perform construction

10 We reserve the right to supplement these comments at later hearings related to this Project. (Gov.

Code § 65009(b); Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199–1203 (explaining exhaustion of administrative remedies under CEQA); see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121 (“As we read section 21177, any alleged grounds for noncompliance with CEQA provisions may be raised by any person prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.”).)

October 28, 2021

4943-010acp

printed on recycled paper
and maintenance work in refineries, port terminals, fuel distribution facilities, and the surrounding communities. Plant and terminal shutdowns caused by accidental toxic releases and infrastructure breakdowns have caused prolonged work stoppages. Such nuisance conditions and catastrophic events impact local communities and the natural environment and can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for businesses to locate and people to live in the area. The participants in SAFER CA are also concerned about projects that carry serious environmental risks and public service infrastructure demands without providing countervailing employment and economic benefits to local workers and communities.

Individual members of SAFER CA include City of Long Beach residents Nicholas Garcia, Sopha Sum, and Sophall Sum. The members represented by the participants in SAFER CA live, work, recreate and raise their families in Los Angeles County, including the City of Long Beach. Accordingly, these people would be directly affected by the Project’s adverse environmental impacts. The members of SAFER CA’s participating unions may also work on the Project itself. They will, therefore, be first in line to be exposed to any hazardous materials, air contaminants, and other health and safety hazards, that exist onsite.

II. THE PORT’S RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ARE WHOLLY

INADEQUATE AND FAIL TO COMPLY WITH CEQA

CEQA requires that a lead agency evaluate and prepare written responses to comments in a final EIR or MND.
11 Agencies are required to provide “detailed
written response to comments . . . to ensure that the lead agency will fully consider the environmental consequences of a decision before it is made, that the decision is well informed and open to public scrutiny, and the public participation in the environmental review process is meaningful.”12 Comments raising significant environmental issues must be addressed in detail.13 Failure of a lead agency to respond to comments before approving a project frustrates CEQA’s informational purpose, rending an EIR legally inadequate.14 “There must be good faith, reasoned

11 Pub. Res. Code § 21091(d); 14 Cal. Code Regs §§ 15088(a), 15132. 12 City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.4th 889, 904. 13 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15088(c).
14 Flanders Found. v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.4th 603, 615; Rural Landowners Ass’n v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.3d 1013, 1020.

October 28, 2021

4943-010acp

printed on recycled paper
analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice.”15

The Port failed to respond to the vast majority of comments submitted by SAFER CA and Dr. Fox. Many of its responses merely direct the reader to responses it provided to other commenters, ignoring the substantive disparities between comments. Dr. Fox’s comments, for example, contain extensive technical explanations supporting her discussion. The Port’s responses to her comments, however, fail to address any of the specific, technical evidence cited by Dr. Fox and instead simply direct the reader to its responses to other comments, most of which do not contain the same level of technical detail. The Port, therefore, violated its duty under CEQA to “address in detail” comments raising significant environmental detail and to provide “good faith, reasoned analysis in response” to these comments.16

For example, nearly all of Dr. Fox’s comments regarding the Project’s construction and operational emissions—labeled for reference as SFERCA-38, SFERCA-39, SFERCA-40, SFERCA-41, and SFERCA-42—are completely overlooked. Each is followed by the same statement, but with reference to a different corresponding SAFER CA comment: “This comment is from the attached Technical Appendix to the Comment Letter and provides additional details to support Comment SFERCA-26. Please see Response to Comment SFERCA-26.”17 Apart from the confusion created by referring the reader to several different locations in search of a response to the comment, it is also non-responsive and a clear violation of CEQA’s requirement to make a “good faith, reasoned analysis in response” to comments. Though portions of Dr. Fox’s technical analyses were summarized in SAFER CA’s comment letter, the bulk of her letter contains detailed examinations evaluating the agency’s findings, as well as comprehensive analyses of her own regarding Project impacts. The IS/ND, perhaps attempting to appear to engage in an innocent consolidation of similar comments, manages to ignore altogether the entirety of Dr. Fox’s comment letter, including all of its substantial evidence supporting her detailed technical conclusions.

15 CEQA Guidelines, § 15088, subd. (c); The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603, 615; see Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1124.
16 Id.
17 Responses to Comments, IS/ND, p. 8-220.

October 28, 2021

4943-010acp

printed on recycled paper
In failing to respond directly to our comments, the Port violated the clear requirements of CEQA. Even if other commenters discussed the same issues or topics in their comment letters, the Port’s improper attempt to consolidate comments and presumably save itself time answering all comments is a clear breach of its duties as the lead agency.

III. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT THE PROJECT’S AIR QUALITY IMPACTS WILL BE SIGNIFICANT

A “negative declaration” is “a written statement by the lead agency briefly describing the reasons that a proposed project . . . will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require the preparation of an EIR.” 18 However, a negative declaration is inappropriate and an EIR must be prepared where there is a fair argument supported by substantial evidence that a project may result in potentially significant impacts.19 Even if other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion, the agency must prepare an EIR.20 Here, the IS/ND itself provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of a significant air quality impact from Project VOC emissions and the Port is required to prepare an EIR. The comments of Dr. Fox provide additional substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project has significant, unmitigated air quality impacts that require an EIR.

An agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.21 The failure to provide information required by CEQA is a failure to proceed in the manner required by law.22

As explained below, the IS/ND failed to disclose potentially significant air quality impacts likely to result from the Project. Furthermore, it used flawed methodology to analyze potential impacts, leading to underestimated impacts.

Therefore, the Port’s conclusions that there will be no significant environmental impacts are unsupported. An EIR must be prepared to fully and accurately analyze the Project’s impacts.

18 CEQA Guidelines, § 15371.
19 CEQA Guidelines § 15064 subd. (f), (h).
20 See No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75. 21 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 732. 22 Sierra Club v. State Bd. Of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236.

October 28, 2021

4943-010acp

printed on recycled paper

A. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project Will Produce Significant Construction Emissions

The IS/ND concludes that construction emissions will be less than significant.23 However, the Port reaches this determination using CalEEMod modeling that assumes the use of Tier Final 4 engines, the most stringent low- emission construction equipment available, without including a mitigation measure or binding condition requiring the Applicant to use this equipment for the Project and without disclosing how high emissions would be if less efficient equipment is used.
24 As a result, the IS/ND discloses only mitigated construction emissions, and does not disclose unmitigated emissions, in violation of CEQA.

Under CEQA, it is improper to attempt to disguise mitigation measures as part of the project’s design if this obfuscates the potential significance of environmental impacts.25 In Lotus v. Department of Transportation, an EIR prepared by the California Department of Transportation (“CalTrans”) contained measures to help minimize potential stress on redwood trees during highway construction, such as restorative planting, invasive plant removal, watering, and use of an arborist and specialized excavation equipment.26 The Court of Appeal held that the EIR improperly compressed the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue because the EIR did not designate the measures as mitigation and concluded that because of the measures, no significant impacts were anticipated.27 The Court explained that a significance determination must be made independent of mitigation first, then mitigation can be incorporated, and the effectiveness of those measures can be evaluated.28 “Absent a determination regarding the significance of the impacts to the root systems of the old growth redwood trees, it is impossible to determine whether mitigation measures are

23 IS/ND, pp. 4-8–4-9.
24 Pages 1 and 13 of the document “20180914_RIBOST_CalEEMod_ALL_ATT 1.PDF” provided to us by the Port in response to our records requests state that the Port requires Tier 4 engines for off-road equipment, but the CalEEMod Air Quality Analysis in Appendix A of the IS/ND contains no such language.
25 Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 658 (compression of mitigation measures into project design without acknowledging potentially significant impact if effects were not mitigated violates CEQA)
26 Id. at 650.
27 Id. at 656.
28 Id. at 654–656.

October 28, 2021

4943-010acp

printed on recycled paper
required or to evaluate whether other more effective measures than those proposed should be considered.”29

By contrast, in Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure, the Court of Appeal distinguished Lotus and held that certain project features are inherent in the project design and need not be identified as mitigation measures.30 In Mission Bay Alliance, the court concluded that the characterization of the TSP as part of the project rather than as a mitigation measure did not interfere with the identification of significant impacts or analysis of measures to mitigate those consequences, as was the case in Lotus.31 The court explained that, “[u]nlike the situation in Lotus, the environmental impacts of the project on vehicle traffic and transit are fully disclosed in the FSEIR.”32 Because the FSEIR included analysis of transit impacts both with and without the TSP, the FSEIR was upheld.33

Here, as in Lotus, the IS/ND relies on mitigation to reduce impacts to less- than-significant levels, thereby avoiding full disclosure and analysis of the severity of the impacts prior to mitigation, as required by CEQA. The IS/ND then concludes that construction emissions will be less than significant.34 However, the Port reaches this determination using CalEEMod modeling that assumes the use of Tier Final 4 engines, the most stringent low-emission construction equipment available, without disclosing the severity of the Project’s unmitigated emissions, and without a binding commitment to use this equipment for the Project and without disclosing how high emissions would be if less efficient equipment is used.35 The use of Tier 4 Final equipment in estimates of construction emissions results in calculations demonstrating less-than-significant impacts. These emissions would be higher, however, were they calculated using lower-tier equipment. Without including mitigation measures mandating the use of Tier 4 construction equipment, the

29 Id. at 656.
30 Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 185.
31 Id. at 185.
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 IS/ND, pp. 4-8–4-9.
35 Pages 1 and 13 of the document “20180914_RIBOST_CalEEMod_ALL_ATT 1.PDF” provided to us by the Port in response to our records requests state that the Port requires Tier 4 engines for off-road equipment, but the CalEEMod Air Quality Analysis in Appendix A of the IS/ND contains no such language.

October 28, 2021

4943-010acp

printed on recycled paper
Applicant is free to use cheaper, highest-emitting low-tier construction equipment that is currently available in the market to build the Project.36 Emissions calculated using Tier 4 Final equipment therefore represent fictional project impacts that will not be achieved unless the applicant has committed to using equipment that will produce those results or better.

In response to our assertion that emissions estimates were incorrectly calculated using Tier 4 Final equipment, the Port claims that “[c]onstruction emissions for the proposed Project were calculated assuming CalEEMod fleet average offroad equipment and fleet average on-road vehicles. The “fleet average” is the unmitigated case assumed by CalEEMod.”37 “Fleet average,” the response continues, is understood as approximately equivalent to Tier 3 equipment.38 However, the IS/ND does not provide any citation in support of this assertion, and, as Dr. Fox points out, a search of the two most-recent CalEEMod user manuals turns up no mention of “fleet average” nor does either reference indicate that Tier 3 is the “unmitigated case assumed by CalEEMod.” Furthermore, the claim that Tier 3, or “fleet average” equipment was used in construction emissions calculations contradicts information provided by the Port in response to our request for records of CalEEMod calculations of Project construction emissions, as well as documents contained in the CalEEMod reports, both of which indicated that Tier 4 equipment was assumed.39

As Dr. Fox explains, Tier 4 Final “is universally considered to be mitigation.

Applicants generally would not voluntarily select Tier 4 Final engines as they are less available and more expensive than lower tier equivalents.”40 By failing to make a significance determination about air quality impacts independent of mitigation before incorporating emissions reductions measures into the calculations, the IS/ND

36 CARB regulations are currently phasing in Tier 4 engines in over several years. Under the CARB regulations, lower tiered (more polluting) equipment may remain in construction fleets for almost ten more years. For example, Tier 0 and Tier 1 (highest polluting equipment) may constitute up to half of small construction fleets in 2022, and will not be phase out until 2029. Large construction fleets are not required to phase out older equipment until 2023. See https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroadzone/pdfs/offroad_booklet.pdf at pp. 7-10) 37 Response to Comments, IS/ND, p. 8-215.
38 Id.
39 CalEEMod Input File Excel Spreadsheet; Pages 1 and 13 of the document “20180914_RIBOST_CalEEMod_ALL_ATT 1.PDF” provided to us by the Port in response to our records requests state that the Port requires Tier 4 engines for off-road equipment. 40 Fox Comments, p. 4.

October 28, 2021

4943-010acp

printed on recycled paper
commits the same fatal error critiqued by the Court of Appeal in Lotus. The Port’s failure to acknowledge the higher levels of construction emissions without the mitigation measures obscures the significance of air quality impacts and prevents the public from properly evaluating the effectiveness of the mitigation measures proposed.41

The Final IS/ND contains confusing, circular, and unsupported reasoning to stand by its original conclusion that construction emissions will be insignificant and do not require any mitigation. Responses to comments insist that emissions calculations assumed a “fleet average,” or Tier 3.42 The documents obtained through public records requests, however, indicate that Tier 4 Final equipment was assumed in those calculations. The Final IS/ND revised its table summarizing construction emissions to indicate that the listed emissions are unmitigated.43 The proposed Project’s unmitigated construction emissions, the IS/ND claims, are estimated to be “well below the SCAQMD daily emissions significance thresholds.” 44 This conclusion
is entirely unsupported because the use of Tier 4 equipment is not guaranteed.

Apparently recognizing its error, the Port added a mitigation measure to the Final IS/ND:

Special Condition AQ-1. Non-Road Engine Emission Standards.

Permittee shall ensure that all construction equipment meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 non-road engine standards. Prior to construction, Permittee shall instruct construction crews on the implementation of Special Conditions. Special Condition AQ-1 would further reduce the off- road equipment engine emissions, particularly the NOX and partic ulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions. However, since the unmitigated emissions are below the SCAQMD emissions significance thresh olds no emissions mitigation is required and Special Condition AQ-1 is not identified as a CEQA mitigation measure, and its implementation has not been assumed to determine the construction emissions significance findings.45

41 Lotus, at 654–656.
42 Responses to Comments, IS/ND, p. 8-215.
43 IS/ND, p. 4-9.
44 IS/ND, p. 4-9.
45 Id.

October 28, 2021

4943-010acp

printed on recycled paper
The Final IS/ND attempts to claim that Special Condition AQ-1 is not mitigation because the Project’s unmitigated emissions are below SCAQMD thresholds. However, this argument is both circular and specious because the emissions that the IS/ND claims are below SCAQMD thresholds of significance were calculated using the same Tier 4 Final equipment that the condition mandates.

This is precisely the problem that the court adjudicated in Lotus. Moreover, any measure designed to reduce impact to less than significant levels is, by definition, a mitigation measure.
46 Mitigation measures cannot be applied to an IS/ND, because they are based on the premise that a project has no significant impacts which require mitigation. An EIR, or at a minimum, an MND, must be prepared to require the use of Tier 4 construction equipment.

The IS/ND fails to “foster informed decisionmaking and public participation.”
47 The Port must prepare an EIR that adequately, accurately, and clearly analyzes all impacts and required mitigation.

B. Analysis of Underestimated and Potentially Significant Operational Emissions Relies on Hidden Studies

The IS/ND’s revised calculations are based largely on data and information found in the new application for Permit to Construct/Permit to Operate (“Permit”).

However, the Port failed to attach the Permit or any of the evidence supporting its conclusions regarding Project impacts in the IS/ND, and failed to provide these documents upon request. As a result, the Port has improperly deprived the public of its right to review its analyses of the Project’s environmental effects. Instead, the public, precluded from independent review, is left to take the Port at its word that Project impacts are less than significant. This is violation of CEQA’s public participation requirement. It also, Dr. Fox points out, ignores the reality of human error, particularly when working with highly complicated areas of scientific concern. “Permitting agencies are not infallible. They sometimes make calculation errors and misinterpret their own regulations, especially in the case of tanks, which are one of the most complex emission sources.”48 The public has a right under CEQA to review and consider the calculations relied upon in the IS/ND to determine whether

46 PRC §§ 21002.1(a), (b); 21100(b)(3).
47 14 C.C.R. § 15126.6(a).
48 Fox Comments, p. 7.

October 28, 2021

4943-010acp

printed on recycled paper
they are accurate and supported by substantial evidence, or whether the Port’s calculations are erroneous or merely unsupported assumptions.

In response to comments that the IS/ND’s use of the EPA TANKS 4.0.9d model to estimate tank VOC emissions was inappropriate because the model was outdated and known to underestimate emissions from storage tanks, SCAQMD revised Project emissions using EPA’s AP-42 Section 7.1 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks methodology.
49 Conspicuously absent from the revised IS/ND, however, are any of the calculations or criteria supporting what SCAQMD concludes are insignificant Project emissions—reviewers are left to accept, categorically and without question, the agency’s conclusory and unsupported statements.

Estimating emissions with AP-42, however, involves defining a specific set of complex assumptions, according to Dr. Fox, and without access to SCAQMD’s calculations and details of estimation parameters, it is impossible to gauge how accurate and complete such estimations were. Dr. Fox points out that numerous sources of emissions, such as roof landing emissions, cleaning emissions, losses from equipment leaks associated with the tanks, and the impact of high velocity wind events on tank emissions,50 were previously omitted from analyses of Project impacts.51 Withholding critical information from public view, such as the Permit application and criteria included in emission calculations, prevents independent evaluation of an agency’s findings and excludes the public from participating in the CEQA process. “It is absolutely essential that the calculations that support tank VOC emissions be provided to the public for review,” Dr. Fox explains. “It is simply not acceptable to assert that just because SCAQMD has endorsed them that they comply with CEQA and are adequate.”52

Moreover, the AP-42 methodology is not from a regulatory agency. It was developed by the American Petroleum Institute, widely known for underestimating tank emissions, with dozens of studies going back decades demonstrating consistently underestimated tank emissions.53 Its use in calculating daily emissions to determine, as SCAQMD did here, compliance with daily CEQA significance thresholds, is inappropriate because, according to EPA guidance, the use of annual

49 IS/ND, p. 4-10.
50 See, e.g., AP-42, Chapter 7, p. 7.1-3.
51 Fox Comments, p. 9.
52 Fox Comments, p. 9.
53 Fox Comments, fns.32, 33.

October 28, 2021

4943-010acp

printed on recycled paper
averages in some equations leads to greater inaccuracy in calculations of less than a year in duration.54

CEQA requires public participation in projects affecting the environment for a reason. … Projects adversely affecting the environment have the potential to impact everyone, and CEQA therefore provides a mechanism by which to scrutinize the work done by lead and responsible agencies, so that all who stand to be affected by a project’s impacts may invest in safeguarding it. Agencies make decisions day after day, many of them erroneous, whose effects will be felt by all Californians, and study after study reveals that impacts—tank emissions, in this case—are incorrectly analyzed. Independent review, therefore, is crucial. As Dr. Fox explains, she has personally reviewed “hundreds of refinery tank emissions, including in the SCAQMD, and have consistently found invalid assumptions and calculation errors that underestimate tank emissions.”
55 C. Potentially Significant Emissions from Increased Capacity and Fugitive Sources are Underestimated

Responding to comments that the IS/ND vastly underestimated operational emissions because it failed to account for several sources of Project emissions, the Port asserted that a number of emissions sources—listed in responses to Earthjustice’s comments, not in response to comments submitted by SAFER CA— had in fact been considered in emissions estimates.56 Explanations of emissions from those sources, however, use flawed reasoning or are merely conclusory, and thus provide no evidence of the accuracy of emissions estimates. For instance, the Port claims that it coordinated with SCAQMD “to ensure that all new piping component fugitive VOC emissions are included in the emissions estimate.”57 An agency’s assurances that it has “ensured” the accuracy of a project’s estimated impacts ignores the public participation requirement of CEQA. A conclusory statement “‘unsupported by empirical or experimental data, scientific authorities, or explanatory information of any kind’ not only fails to crystallize issues but ‘affords

54 Fox Comments, p. 9; AP-42, Volume 1, Introduction, p. 2; https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/c00s00.pdf. 55 Fox Comments, p. 8.
56 IS/ND, p. 8-96.
57 Id.

October 28, 2021

4943-010acp

printed on recycled paper
no basis for a comparison of the problems involved with the proposed project and the difficulties involved in the alternatives.’”58

The IS/ND next claims that emissions from other sources, such as pipeline cleaning and tank dewatering, are immaterial because the Project would not result in any increase in oil throughput “due to limitations associated with the physical geometry of the site, physical limitations of the existing pipelines and truck loading racks and permitted throughput limits.”59 This ignores the logical conclusion that, even though the existing throughput permits might not change, the Project proposes to add two 25,000-barrel tanks to the site, while the two larger tanks that were previously underutilized will be leased to third-party vendors and will likely be full, resulting in an increase in the amount of crude oil present at the site. This, in turn, will lead to increased emissions from any activity ancillary to tank operations.

The IS/ND, meanwhile, did not even bother to respond to Dr. Fox’s concerns regarding its lack of analysis of fugitive emissions sources. The Project will use two internal floating roof storage tanks, meaning that the roofs of the tanks will float on the surface of the liquid inside the tank.60 Dr. Fox’s comments clearly explained that evaporative losses can occur when the contents of the tank reach the level where the roof sits on deck legs near the bottom of the tank.61 These losses occur when the floating roof has landed on the deck legs and stands idle while oil vapor is lost through a breather vent.62 Losses also occur through the breather vent while the tank is being refilled until the liquid in the tank rises to the level of the roof being refloated on the liquid’s surface.63 The Port failed to respond to these significant comments demonstrating major errors and omissions in the Port’s emissions analysis.

There is more than a fair argument, which the Final IS/ND has failed to address, that all of the omissions discussed above, combined with the underestimated operational emissions from inaccurate AP-42 modeling, yields a highly significant air quality impact from VOC emissions. The Port must prepare an

58 Cleary v. County of Stanislaus (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 348, 357. 59 9/21 IS/ND, pdf 15, 17.
60 Fox Comments, pp. 18–20.
61 Fox 11/20/20 Comments, pp. 18–20.
62 Fox 11/20/20 Comments, pp. 18–20.
63 Fox 11/20/20 Comments, pp. 18–20.

October 28, 2021

4943-010acp

printed on recycled paper
EIR which discloses these impacts and provides specific mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

D. The IS/ND Improperly Relies on Emissions Offsets to Reduce VOC Emissions

In response to our prior comments regarding the improper reliance on emissions offsets to reduce VOC emissions, the Port stated:

The IS/ND does not rely on emissions offsets to reduce or mitigate VOC emissions under CEQA. The prop osed Project’s operation VOC emissions are presented in the IS/ND, without taking into consideration use of the emissions reduction credits required for permitting (see IS/ND Table 4.3-2). The proposed Project’s operation VOC emissions are well below the SCAQMD emissions significance thresholds and therefore do not require mitigation. VOC emissions offsets are specifically discussed as a requirement of SCAQMD for permitting the new tanks (SCAQMD, 2021c). The IS/ND indicates that VOC emissions reduction will be achieved using the emissions reduct ion credits in a footnote to the operation emissions table; however, use of the emissions offsets is in no way relied on to make CEQA emissions impact determinations for the proposed Project.64

This Response ignores the concerns expressed in our comment regarding unmitigated VOC emissions and is non-responsive, in a violation of CEQA. As we explained before, there is a fair argument that VOC emissions from the Project will be highly significant. The offsets, which are intended to reduce the impacts of the Project’s VOC emissions due to exceedances of SCAQMD’s New Source Review Rule,65 will not offset all of the VOC emissions from the Project’s new tanks. The emissions, once properly calculated and analyzed, will exacerbate the existing potential for excess VOC emissions and further exceed SCAQMD’s offset threshold, resulting in a significant impact.66 The ERCs, however, are not valid mitigation for

64 Reponses to Comments, IS/ND, p. 8-216.
65 “The facility’s existing potential to emit is above the SCAQMD New Source Review Rule VOC offset threshold of 4 tons per year; therefore, the new tank emissions were required to be offset.” Draft IS/ND, p. 4-9.
66 14 C.C.R. § 15126.2(a).

October 28, 2021

4943-010acp

printed on recycled paper
VOC emissions under CEQA and could not be claimed as mitigation in a revised CEQA document.67

Dr. Fox explains that historically banked ERCs only reflect emissions reductions in the past and do nothing to reduce emissions at the time and location where the air quality impacts are occurring.68 Thus, ERCs are more appropriately considered part of the existing baseline of air quality conditions in the region.69 Project emissions in the near future, regardless of whether they are covered by historically banked ERCs, constitute a deviation from that baseline and an exacerbation of existing air pollution.

Here, as discussed in our prior comments, the ERCs proposed to offset VOC emissions were issued December 14, 1993, 27 years ago.70 Consequently, relying on the ERCs does nothing to actually mitigate the serious air quality concerns in the region in the present day.71 VOC emissions will increase in the Project area and currently nothing will be done to reduce those impacts.72 CEQA prohibits reliance on ineffective mitigation measures such as the ERCs proposed in the IS/ND.73

Therefore, even with ERCs, the VOC emissions from the Project would still be significant when they are adjusted for all the flaws identified by Dr. Fox above.

Even if adequate and effective mitigation could be adopted, a mitigated negative declaration would be necessary to comply with CEQA in lieu of the IS/ND. In the absence of mitigation, an EIR is required.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Port has failed to uphold its duty under CEQA to prepare a CEQA document that accurately discloses and mitigates the Project’s air quality impacts, then failed to meaningfully respond to all significant comments on the record, in further violation of CEQA. For all of the reasons discussed above, the Final IS/ND

67 Draft IS/ND, p. 4-9, Table 4.3-2; Fox 11/20/20 Comments, p. 23. 68 Fox 11/20/20 Comments, pp. 23–24.
69 Fox 11/20/20 Comments, pp. 23–24.
70 SCAQMD, Certificate of Proof for Registered Emission Reduction Credit, Certificate No.

AQ001032, Reissued to Ribost Terminal, LLC, Issued December 5, 2019. 71 Fox 11/20/20 Comments, pp. 23–24.
72 Id.
73 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727–728.

October 28, 2021

4943-010acp

printed on recycled paper
for the Project is wholly inadequate and must be revised and recirculated as an EIR to provide legally adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, all the Project’s potentially significant impacts. These revisions will necessarily require that the CEQA document be recirculated for additional public review. Until the Port has complied with these requirements for revision and recirculation as described herein, the Port may not approve the Project.

S i n c e r e l y ,

K e n d r a H a r t m a n n

:kdh

EXHIBIT A
Phyllis Fox, PhD, PE
745 White Pine Avenue
Rockledge, FL 32955

October 27, 2021

Kendra Hartmann
Adams Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080

RE: Rebuttal to Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the World Oil Terminal, Long Beach, California

Dear Ms. Hartmann:

I commented1 on the October 2020 Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the World Oil Tank Installation Project (Project).2 The Project includes the construction and operation of two new 25,000-barrel internal floating roof petroleum storage tanks within the existing World Oil Terminal at the Port of Long Beach (POLB). The Project would provide additional storage capacity to increase the efficiency of terminal operations, allegedly with no increase in terminal throughput.3 The Port of Long Beach, the lead agency, responded to comments and issued a Final Negative Declaration/Application Summary Report, World Oil Tank Installation

1 Phyllis Fox, Comments on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the World Oil Terminal, November 20, 2020, Attachment A to ABJC Letter (Fox Comments). 2 Aspen Environmental Group, Draft Negative Declaration/Application Summary Report, World Oil Tank Installation Project, Port of Long Beach (2020 IS/ND), October 2020; https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/265083-
2/attachment/UezPRXh_26SMuyRNTyTeid8myaWKsQmqp1tDBYq35LEvO_TI1v0THwdAwZw2yP80G CPPHU0o85_iJZ4d0.
3 2020 IS/ND, pdf 17.
2 Project, Port of Long Beach in September 2021 (9/21 IS/ND).4 The responses to my comments are found at SFERCA-36 through SFERCA-43.5
As you requested, I have reviewed the 9/21 IS/ND and the responses to my comments. The responses do not address any of my comments directly but only ABJC’s summary of them or similar comments filed by others that differ in important details— for example, comments submitted by EarthJustice (EJ). Further, ABJC’s summary of my comments (which omits important technical details that are not addressed in the responses) are also not responded to directly. Many of the responses also refer to similar comments made by others, which are distinguishable from my initial comments in important ways. This creates an incoherent maze of responses that cannot be untangled in the very short review time. My comments (first listed below) are responded to in the following comments (after the colon):
 SFERCA-36: Responses SFERCA-2, -24
 SFERCA-37: Response SFERCA-24
 SFERCA-38: Response SFERCA-25, which cites to Response EJ-9.  SFERCA-39: Response SFERCA-26, which cites to Responses EJ-7, EJ-9, EJ-14
 SFERCA-40; Response SFERCA-27
 SFERCA-41: Response SFERCA-29, which cites to Response EJ-9, EJ-10
 SFERCA-42: Response SFERCA-28, A-29
 SFERCA-43: Response EJ-10
Further, the responses rely on new information that is not in the record. A “new Permit to Construct/Permit to Operate Application to the SCAQMD in February 2021” is the basis of revised emission calculations and is heavily relied upon to support revised emission calculations.
6 Thus, the responses are unsupported and the 9/21
IS/ND fails as an informational document under CEQA.

Due to inadequate review time and the absence of supporting emission calculations in the IS/ND, I am unable to reply to the responses to all of my comments.

4 Aspen Environmental Group, Final Negative Declaration/Application Summary Report, World Oil Tank Installation Project, Port of Long Beach, September 2021 (2021 IS/ND); https://polb.com/documents/#ceqa-nepa.
5 9/21 IS/ND, pdf 293-326.
6 9/21 IS/ND, See, e.g., pdf 206, 207, 208, 332.
3 However, the absence of a response does not imply concurrence but rather inadequate time to respond and/or absence of supporting information.

Thus, as discussed below, responses to these other comments fail to directly and correctly address my comments, which stand unrebutted in the record. Further, my review indicates that the responses to comments are often at odds with the actual modifications made to the 9/21 IS/ND.

Response to Fox Comment 2, cited as SFERCA-36/37: Construction Impacts are Significant and Unmitigated
I commented that the IS/ND failed to support construction emissions by failing to supply the CalEEMod input file.7 I further commented that in the absence of mitigation requiring Tier 4 construction equipment, NOx, ROG, and PM10 emissions would be significant, requiring mitigation. The Responses do not address my comment but only ABJC’s summary of it, in Comment SFERCA-24.8 Further, the response to this comment conflicts with the modified 2020 IS/ND.

The response to Comment SFERCA-24 (summarizing Fox Comment 2) asserts construction emissions were estimated assuming the CalEEMod “fleet average off-road equipment and fleet average on-road vehicles”9 as the unmitigated case and that “fleet average” is approximately equivalent on average to assuming Tier 3 equipment.”10 No support is provided for this assertion, and I found none. The user manuals for the CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 model used in the 2020 IS/ND are silent as to the term “fleet average,” which does not occur anywhere in the supporting documentation.11 Further, CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 is no longer the current version of the model, but rather Version 2020.4.0, which also does not include the term “fleet average.”12 My Comment 2.1 demonstrated that unless mitigation is imposed to require “Tier 4 Final” engines, NOx, ROG, and PM10 emissions would be significant.13 The

7 Phyllis Fox, Comments on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the World Oil Terminal, November 20, 2020 (Fox Comments), Attachment A to ABJC Letter, Fox Comment 2.1. 8 9/21 IS/MD, pdf 331 Response SFERCA-24.
9 9/21 IS/ND, pdf 331, Response SFERCA-24.
10 9/21 IS/ND, pdf 331, Response SFERCA-24.
11 User’s Guide for CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2; https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/archive/user's- guide-version-2016-3-2.
12 User’s Guide for CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0; http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide. 13 Fox Comment 2.1; 9/21 IS/ND, pdf 331, Response SFERCA-24. 4 responses do not address at all the underestimation of ROG and PM10 construction emissions nor the fact that they would be significant unless Tier 4 Final engines are required in all construction equipment. Rather, the response focuses on NOx, ignoring ROG and PM10.

Rather than disclose significant construction air quality impacts, the 9/21 IS/ND changed the title of the construction emissions table from “Summary of Maximum Daily Construction Emission Estimates” to “Summary of Unmitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emission Estimates.” The 9/21 IS/ND also imposed a “special condition” requiring the use of Tier 4 Final off-road equipment, as follows:14

The 9/21 IS/ND argues that this condition “would further reduce the off-road equipment engine emissions, particularly the NOx and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions. However, since the unmitigated emissions are below the SCAQMD emissions significance thresholds no emissions mitigation is required and Special Condition AQ-1 is not identified as a CEQA mitigation measure, and its implementation has not been assumed to determine the construction emissions significance findings.”
15 The use of Tier 4 Final engines in construction equipment is universally considered to be mitigation. Applicants generally would not voluntarily select Tier 4 Final engines as they are less available and more expensive than lower tier equivalents.

It is plausible that the CalEEMod was run with lower tier engines, significant impacts were found, and the engine tiers were changed to avoid finding significant construction impacts, requiring the preparation of an IS/MND or EIR.

In fact, my client requested support for construction engine tiers assumed in the CalEEMod analysis. The response included a table that lists construction equipment and engine tiers assumed in the construction emissions, presented in Comment 2 of my November 20, 2020 Comments.
16 The subject table is reproduced here as Table 1.

14 9/21 IS/ND, pdf 37.
15 9/21 IS/ND, pdf 37-38.
16 Fox Comment 2, p. 3.

5 Table 1. Construction Equipment Tier Assumed in Mitigated Construction Emissions

This table shows that “Tier 4 Final” equipment was assumed in the construction emission calculations summarized in Table 4.3-1 of the 9/21 IS/ND, not an undefined “fleet average” or “Tier 3” as asserted in Response SFERCA-24. Tier 4 Final is the cleanest equipment available. Tier 4 regulations began in 2011 for most engines and Tier 4 Final was phased in beginning in 2014. Tier 4 Final regulations require additional NOx reduction beyond that of “Tier 4.” My Comment 2.1 demonstrated that unless mitigation is imposed to require “Tier 4 Final” engines as assumed in the construction emissions summarized here in Table 1, NOx emissions would be significant.

Thus, the 9/21 IS/ND must require all Tier 4 Final construction equipment to mitigate otherwise significant construction NOx, ROG, and PM10 impacts. Instead, the 9/21 IS/ND erroneously reports construction emissions as “unmitigated maximum daily construction emissions.”
17 The emissions in this table are actually “mitigated” construction emissions based on Tier 4 Final engines, as summarized in Table 1.

Instead of requiring Tier 4 construction equipment, as assumed in the construction emission calculations, the responses assert that “the POLB is expected to require the Project to use Tier 4 equipment as a Special Condition of the Project’s Harbor Development Permit (HDP) in accordance with the Port’s Construction Air Quality Best Management Practice (BMP) for off-road equipment engines.” 18 However,
“expectation” is not reliable mitigation. Tier 4 Final engines must be required as enforceable CEQA “mitigation” as assumed in the construction emission analysis, not as a “special condition.” Required use of Tier 4 Final engines is per se mitigation, compelling the preparation of a mitigated negative declaration (MND) or an EIR.

17 9/21 IS/ND, Table 4.3-1, pdf 37.
18 9/21 IS/ND, pdf 331, Response to Comment SFERCA-24.

6 Response to Fox Comment 3, cited as SFERCA-38: Operational VOC Emissions Are Significant
I commented that operational VOC emissions were underestimated and significant for several reasons, as follows:19
 The TANKS model used to estimate VOC emissions is known to significantly underestimate VOC emissions from tanks (Response SFERCA-25, which is referenced to Response EJ-9).
 There are sources of VOC emissions from the tanks that are not included in the TANKS model and that were not disclosed in the IS/ND (Response SFERCA-26, which is referenced to Responses EJ-9 and EJ-14).  Emissions from the repurposed tanks and from fugitive components (two pumps, connections to existing pipelines, valves, connectors, etc. 20) were
omitted (no response).
 The significance thresholds listed in Table 1 are for Project construction, not Project operation (no response).
21  Tank fugitive VOC emissions of 10.82 lb/day22 based on calculations in the SCAQMD’s Permit to Construct Evaluation were unsupported (no response).  The proposed expansion in crude oil storage implies an increase in crude oil throughput at the supported refinery and hence, an increase in refinery emissions, which were omitted from emission calculations (Response SFERCA-21, which is referenced to Responses EJ-13, EJ-14, EJ-19, EJ-20, EJ-21, EJ-31).23
The 9/21 IS/ND revised all of the “unmitigated maximum daily operational emission increase estimates” that I commented on in SFERCA-38 (see 9/21 IS/ND Table

19 Fox Comment 3. Operational VOC Emissions Are Significant. 20 9/21 IS/ND, pdf 16, p. 2-4.
21 9/21 IS/ND, Table 4.3-2. Summary of Unmitigated Maximum Daily Operation Emissions Increase Estimates (Pounds Per Day), pdf 39, uses SCAQMD construction significance thresholds for VOCs (75 lb/day instead of 55 lb/day ) and for NOx (100 lb/day instead of 55 lb/day); http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
22 IS/ND, pdf 39.
23 While not responded to directly, the IS/ND was modified to assert no changes in refinery operation at 9/21 IS/ND, pdf 24, 99, 214-216. However, an assertion, without a condition requiring compliance, does not assure no increase in refinery emissions.
7 4.3-2), based on information that is not in the record.24 Thus, I cannot review and comment on the accuracy of the revisions or whether they are responsive to my comments. The responses cited in the bulleted items above do not explain how the revised operational emissions were calculated. Thus, the IS/ND fails as an informational document under CEQA.

Further, the responses to my comments throughout are cited to SAFER summaries of my comments. The responses to the SAFER comments are then cited to responses to EJ comments. None of these responses respond to comments as I wrote them. This creates a tangled web of cross-references that is nearly impossible to untangle and interpret in the limited review time without supporting Excel spreadsheets disclosing the actual calculations. There is, in fact, no response at all to the substance of the vast majority of my comments, which stand unrebutted in the record.

Further, the responses to my comments on operational emissions rely on information that is not in the record, including a new permit application submitted by the Applicant to the SCAQMD and the SCAQMD’s emission calculations that support revised operational emission estimates in the 9/21 IS/ND, Table 4.3-2. 25 Revised Emissions Based on AP-42
The 9/21 IS/ND indicates operational VOC emissions from the new tanks were revised using the U.S. EPA’s AP-42:26
The new tank VOC emissions were estimated by SCAQMD as part of the review of the Applicant’s revised permit to construct/operate application for the proposed Project’s new tanks. SCAQMD used the current USEPA AP-42 Section 7.1 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks (USEPA, 2020) methodology, assuming a gasoline Reid Vapor (RVP) of 10, ‘average’ paint condition, and August as the maximum monthly emissions (SCAQMD, 2021b, 2021c).

24 9/21 IS/ND, Table 4.3-2, pdf 39, See: Source: SCAQMD 2021b; SCAQMD 2021c; Yorke, 2021. 25 9/21 IS/ND, pdf 36, 207, 208, 211. See also pdf 208, citing SCAQMD 2021b, 2021c (“SCAQMD completed a revised emissions estimate for the proposed Project’s tanks…”) and pdf 330 also citing SCAQMD 2021b, 2021c (“World Oil submitted to the SCAQMD a new application for a permit to construct/permit to operate for the two new tanks.”).
26 9/21 IS/ND, pdf 38. See also 9/21 IS/ND, pdf 208-209 (Response to Comment EJ-9). 8 This does not address my comments on tank VOC emissions. The response to my comment on tank emissions cites to the response to Comment EJ-9,27 which just addresses one of the eleven studies I reviewed that demonstrate that AP-42 and the TANKS model used to implement it underestimate refinery tank emissions.

Over 35 studies performed between 1988 and 2008 demonstrated that measured tank emissions were consistently higher than reported emissions.28 Actual measurements of tank emissions using remote sensing methods such as differential absorption lidar (“DIAL”)29 indicate that tank emissions are substantially higher than calculated using AP-42 algorithms, which underestimate both VOC and HAP emissions. Swedish authorities, for example, on discovering these discrepancies, required the use of remote sensing methods in place of emission factors to estimate tank emissions.30 Since 1995, all five Swedish refineries report emissions based on either SOF or DIAL studies performed at least once every 3 years.31 There is no measurement evidence that AP-42 accurately estimates VOC emissions from tanks. The EPA itself admits this in responses to comments on the AP-42 section that the SCAQMD relied on, viz., “we [the EPA] are not currently aware of modern monitoring technology of annual emissions from storage tanks that could be compared with current AP-42 methodology.”32
In fact, AP-42 and the TANKS model are well known to underestimate tank emissions based on many field measurements studies reviewed in my Comment SFERCA-25. The 9/21 IS/ND contains no response to my detailed discussion of the underestimation of VOC emissions from internal floating roof tanks, based on these additional field measurement studies.33 Instead, it refers to Response EJ-9. Response

27 9/21 IS/ND, Response to Comment EJ-9, pdf 208-210.
28Fox Comment 3. Operational VOC Emissions Are Significant, p. 6. 29 LIDAR is a remote-surveying technology that measures distance by illuminating a target with a laser light. Differential absorption lidar (DIAL) measurements utilize two or more closely spaced wavelengths to measure the concentration of atmospheric gases. See ScienceDirect, Differential Absorption Lidar; https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/differential-absorption-lidar. 30 Cuclis 2012, p. 4 and Figure 1, Exhibit 4.
31 Ibid.
32 US EPA, Response to Comments on Proposed Revisions to AP-42 Chapter 7, Section 7.1 – Organic Liquid Storage Tanks, November 20, 2019, pdf 15; https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 10/documents/ch07s01.pdf.
33 Fox Comments, pp. 8-18.
9 EJ-9 only addresses one of the 12 field studies that I citied, the SCAQMD FluxSense study.

However, the other eleven field studies that I cite agree with the FluxSense study and conclusively demonstrate that AP-42 significantly underestimates tank VOC and HAP emissions. Some of these studies were published in referred journal articles34 or sponsored by public agencies, including the U.S. EPA, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and the Houston Bureau of Pollution Control and Prevention. I am not aware of any independent field study that demonstrates that the AP-42 tank section accurately estimates refinery tank VOC emissions. The IS/ND fails to address my comment on the underestimation of tank VOC emissions. Consider the following.

First, the supporting calculations in SCAQMD 2021b and 2021c are not in the record so I cannot review them. The IS/ND updated tank VOC emissions in the 9/21 IS/ND “to reflect the updated operation emission estimate prepared by SCAQMD as part of its review of World Oil’s new permit to construct/permit to operate application for the new tanks..” The IS/ND contains absolutely no information on these calculations. Rather, the responses suggest the Port and reviewers should blindly accept this estimate without review as the “SCAQMD is the responsible agency for the assessment and approval of the emissions estimates for the issuance of the permit…” 35 However, this is inconsistent with CEQA. It is further inconsistent with my experience based on decades of working on similar projects in the SCAQMD and elsewhere.36 Permitting agencies are not infallible. They sometimes make calculation errors and misinterpret their own regulations, especially in the case of tanks, which are one of the most complex emission sources in all of AP-42.

The AP-42 tank section relies on many input variables, none of which are disclosed in the files I have reviewed. The over- or underestimate of any one of them could significantly change tank VOC emissions. The U.S. EPA has issued an “Enforcement Alert” regarding the use of AP-42 emission factors and specifically cites

34 Fox Comments, Comment 3, pp. 5-54: Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, Journal of Environmental Monitoring, Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 35 9/21 IS/ND, p. 208.
36 See, e.g., Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310.
10 two examples, both of which are tanks permitted based on AP-42 estimates.37 Independent review is critically important. The supporting applications and calculations for the revised VOC emissions in the IS/ND are not in the record. Thus, the revised VOC emissions are unsupported, and the 9/21 IS/ND fails as an informational document under CEQA.

Second, AP-42 is well known to underestimate tank emissions, as I explained in my comments.38,39 The tank emission estimating equations in AP-42 were developed by the American Petroleum Institute (API),40 which represents the refining industry from well head to final products. The fact that AP-42 underestimates tank emissions has been demonstrated in numerous studies over the past several decades and is very well known.

Third, there are numerous assumptions required to implement the AP-42 tank calculations. Without access to the SCAQMD’s calculations, no one can confirm the accuracy and completeness of the assumptions used in the revised tank VOC emissions.

It is impossible to determine, for example, if the tank emissions in the IS/ND include roof landing emissions, cleaning emissions, losses from equipment leaks associated with the tanks, and the impact of high velocity wind events (e.g., Santa Ana winds) on tank emissions.41 It is absolutely essential that the calculations that support tank VOC emissions be provided to the public for review. It is simply not acceptable to assert that just because SCAQMD has endorsed them that they comply with CEQA and are adequate. I have reviewed hundreds of refinery tank emissions, including in the SCAQMD, and have consistently found invalid assumptions and calculation errors that underestimate tank emissions.

37 U.S. EPA, Enforcement Alert, EPA Reminder About Inappropriate Use of AP-42 Emission Factors, November 2020; https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/ap42- enforcementalert.pdf.
38 See literature review in Environmental Integrity Project, Comments on EPA’s Draft “Emission Estimation Protocol for Petroleum Refineries,” March 31, 2010, p. 5, https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/ thester/courses/Emerging%20Tech%202011/20100331_EIPCommentsonRefineryEmissionsProtocol.pdf. 39 Alex Cuclis, Why Emission Factors Don’t Work at Refineries and What To Do About It, Paper Presented at the Emissions Inventory Conference in Tampa, Florida, August 13-16, 2012, Exhibit 4; https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei20/session7/acuclis.pdf. 40 AP-42, Chapter 7, Liquid Storage Tanks, p. 7.1-4; https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 10/documents/ch07s01.pdf.
41 See, e.g., AP-42, Chapter 7, p. 7.1-3.
11 Fourth, EPA itself does not recommend the use of AP-42 emission factors as emission limits.42 EPA cautions that the AP-42 tank calculations are not accurate for periods of less than a year. The introduction to the tanks section (Section 7.1.1.1 Scope) specifically states as follows:43

This is critical here because the SCAQMD significance thresholds are expressed in pounds per day (lb/day).44 The AP-42 tank emission calculation methodology does not accurately estimate daily emissions. Thus, while the SCAQMD’s undisclosed calculations based on AP-42 may be appropriate for permitting annual emissions, they are not appropriate for determining compliance with daily CEQA significance thresholds.

Terminal Throughput Would Increase
The IS/ND asserts that the Project would provide additional storage capacity for petroleum products by providing more efficient terminal operations with no increase in throughput “due to limitations associated with the physical geometry of the site, physical limitations of the existing pipelines and truck loading racks and permitted throughput limits.”45 However, the Project would also increase Terminal capacity and thus throughput. Increased throughput would increase emissions from repurposing the World Oil tanks.

The IS/ND states that the new tanks would replace the Terminal’s existing tanks that store crude oil for the World Oil Refinery and that these existing tanks will be removed from dedicated World Oil Refinery service and become available for lease to third-party vendors.46 The IS/ND states that the Project would not cause an increase in

42 AP-42, Volume 1, Introduction, p. 2; https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 09/documents/c00s00.pdf.
43 AP-42, Chapter 7, p. 7.1-3.
44 SCAQMD, South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds; http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
45 9/21 IS/ND, pdf 15, 17.
46 9/21 IS/ND, pdf 17.

12 World Oil’s crude oil throughput.47 However, the IS/ND is silent as to the increased emissions from future uses of the two retired World Oil tanks. Any future use of these tanks would increase Terminal capacity and resulting emissions. The IS/ND is silent on this source of emissions.

The IS/ND states that the Project “would allow the two existing World Oil crude oil tanks that would be replaced by this project, to serve as leased remote fuel oil product storage for other pipeline-connected facilities…” 48 Thus, the Project has the potential to increase the storage capacity of the Terminal by providing two additional tanks that could store crude oil or other more volatile materials. The IS/ND repeatedly argues that there would be no change in permit limit of existing pipelines, tanks, or truck loading racks.49 However, Terminal tank emissions would increase because the Project will add two new tanks and the two existing World Oil tanks would be available for lease to others. Further, emissions to import the future content of these two existing tanks would increase.

Thus, the IS/ND fails as an informational document under CEQA for failing to disclose the increase in Terminal throughput and for failing to evaluate the resulting increased emissions from repurposing the two existing World Oil tanks and delivering the products stored in them.

In sum, in my opinion the IS/ND fails as an informational document under CEQA for failing to support construction and operational emission calculations and for failing to disclose an increase in Terminal emissions. The absence of a response in this letter to the 9/21 IS/ND’s response to any of my comments does not imply concurrence, but rather inadequate time to unravel the maze of unsupported cross- references.

Sincerely,

Phyllis Fox, PhD, PE

47 9/21 IS/ND, pdf 56.
48 9/21 IS/ND, pdf 55.
49 9/21 IS/ND, pdf 55, 56, 99, 100.

Phyllis Fox, Ph.D, PE
Environmental Management
745 White Pine Ave.

Rockledge, FL 32955
321-626-6885
[email protected]

Dr. Fox has over 40 years of experience in the field of environmental engineering, including air pollution control (BACT, BART, MACT, LAER, RACT), greenhouse gas emissions and control, cost effectiveness analyses, water quality and water supply investigations, hydrology, hazardous waste investigations, environmental permitting, nuisance investigations (odor, noise), 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.

REGISTRATION

Registered Professional Engineer: Arizona (2001-2014: #36701; retired), California (2002- present; CH 6058), Florida (2001-2016; #57886; retired), Georgia (2002-2014; #PE027643; retired), Washington (2002-2014; #38692; retired), Wisconsin (2005-2014; #37595-006; retired) Board Certified Environmental Engineer, American Academy of Environmental Engineers, Certified in Air Pollution Control (DEE #01-20014), 2002-2014; retired) Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP), Institute of Professional Environmental Practice (QEP #02-010007, 2001-2015: retired).

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

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
American Chemical Society (1981-2010)
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.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 2

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: petroleum refineries and upgrades thereto; reformulated fuels projects; refinery upgrades to process heavy sour crudes, including tar sands and light sweet crudes from the Eagle Ford and Bakken Formations; petroleum, gasoline and ethanol distribution terminals; coal, coke, and ore/mineral export terminals; LNG export, import, and storage terminals; crude-by-rail projects; shale oil plants; crude oil/condensate marine and rail terminals; coal gasification and liquefaction plants; oil and gas production, including conventional, thermally enhanced, hydraulic fracking, and acid stimulation techniques; underground storage tanks; pipelines; compressor stations; gasoline stations; landfills; railyards; hazardous waste treatment facilities; nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, wood, biomass, waste, tire-derived fuel, gas, oil, coke and coal-fired power plants; wind farms; solar energy facilities; battery storage facilities; transmission lines; airports; hydrogen plants; petroleum coke calcining plants; coke plants; activated carbon manufacturing facilities; 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; nitric acid plants; urea plants; food processing plants; wineries; almond hulling facilities; composting facilities; grain processing facilities; grain elevators; ethanol production facilities; soy bean oil extraction plants; biodiesel plants; paint formulation plants; wastewater treatment plants; marine terminals and ports; gas processing plants; steel mills; iron nugget production facilities; pig iron plant, based on blast furnace technology; direct reduced iron plant; acid regeneration facilities; railcar refinishing facility; battery manufacturing plants; pesticide manufacturing and repackaging facilities; pulp and paper mills; olefin plants; methanol plants; ethylene crackers; alumina plants, desalination plants; battery storage facilities; data centers; covered lagoon anaerobic digesters with biogas generators and upgrading equipment to produce renewable natural gas and electricity; selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems; selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) systems; halogen acid furnaces; contaminated property PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 3

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.

EXPERT WITNESS/LITIGATION SUPPORT
 For plaintiffs-intervenors (Sierra Club), in civil action relating to alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, for historic modifications at Rush Island Units 1 and 2 and Labadie Energy Center, assist counsel in evaluating best available control technology (BACT) to reduce SO2 emissions, including wet and dry scrubbing, sorbent injection, and offsets. Case settled. U.S. and Sierra Club vs. Ameren Missouri, Case No. 4-11 CV 77 RWS, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, September 30, 2019.
 For the California Attorney General, assist in determining compliance with probation terms in the matter of People v. Chevron USA.
 For plaintiffs, assist in developing Petitioners’ proof brief for National Parks Conservation Association et al v. U.S. EPA, Petition for Review of Final Administrative Action of the U.S.

EPA, In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Docket No. 14-3147.  For plaintiffs, expert witness in civil action relating to alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, for historic modifications (1997-2000) at the Cemex cement plant in Lyons, Colorado. Reviewed produced documents, prepared expert and rebuttal reports on PSD applicability based on NOx emission calculations for a collection of changes considered both individually and collectively. Deposed August 2011. United States v. Cemex, Inc., In U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 09-cv-00019-MSK-MEH). Case settled June 13, 2013.
 For plaintiffs, in civil action relating to alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, for historic modifications (1988 – 2000) at James De Young Units 3, 4, and 5. Reviewed produced documents, analyzed CEMS and EIA data, and prepared netting and BACT analyses for NOx, SO2, and PM10 (PSD case). Expert report February 24, 2010 and affidavit February 20, 2010. Sierra Club v. City of Holland, et al., U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan (Civil Action 1:08-cv-1183). Case settled. Consent Decree 1/19/14.
 For plaintiffs, in civil action alleging failure to obtain MACT permit, expert on potential to emit hydrogen chloride (HCl) from a new coal-fired boiler. Reviewed record, estimated HCl emissions, wrote expert report June 2010 and March 2013 (Cost to Install a Scrubber at the Lamar Repowering Project Pursuant to Case-by-Case MACT), deposed August 2010 and PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 4

March 2013. Wildearth Guardian et al. v. Lamar Utilities Board, Civil Action No. 09-cv- 02974, U.S. District Court, District of Colorado. Case settled August 2013.  For plaintiffs, expert witness on permitting, emission calculations, and wastewater treatment for coal-to-gasoline plant. Reviewed produced documents. Assisted in preparation of comments on draft minor source permit. Wrote two affidavits on key issues in case.

Presented direct and rebuttal testimony 10/27 - 10/28/10 on permit enforceability and failure to properly calculate potential to emit, including underestimate of flaring emissions and omission of VOC and CO emissions from wastewater treatment, cooling tower, tank roof landings, and malfunctions. Sierra Club, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Coal River Mountain Watch, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. John Benedict, Director, Division of Air Quality, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection and TransGas Development System, LLC, Appeal No. 10-01-AQB. Virginia Air Quality Board remanded the permit on March 28, 2011 ordering reconsideration of potential to emit calculations, including: (1) support for assumed flare efficiency; (2) inclusion of startup, shutdown and malfunction emissions; and (3) inclusion of wastewater treatment emissions in potential to emit calculations.
 For plaintiffs, expert on BACT emission limits for gas-fired combined cycle power plant.

Prepared declaration in support of CBE's Opposition to the United States' Motion for Entry of Proposed Amended Consent Decree. Assisted in settlement discussions. U.S. EPA, Plaintiff, Communities for a Better Environment, Intervenor Plaintiff, v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, Case No. C-09-4503 SI.
 Technical expert in confidential settlement discussions with large coal-fired utility on BACT control technology and emission limits for NOx, SO2, PM, PM2.5, and CO for new natural gas fired combined cycle and simple cycle turbines with oil backup. (July 2010). Case settled.
 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 (1998- 99) at Gallagher Units 1 and 3. Reviewed produced documents, prepared expert and rebuttal reports on historic and current-day BACT for SO2, control costs, and excess emissions of SO2. Deposed 11/18/09. United States et al. v. Cinergy, et al., In U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Civil Action No. IP99-1693 C-M/S.

Settled 12/22/09.
 For plaintiffs, expert witness on MACT, BACT for NOx, and enforceability in an administrative appeal of draft state air permit issued for four 300-MW pet-coke-fired CFBs.

Reviewed produced documents and prepared prefiled testimony. Deposed 10/8/09 and 11/9/09. Testified 11/10/09. Application of Las Brisas Energy Center, LLC for State Air Quality Permit; before the State Office of Administrative Hearings, Texas. Permit remanded 3/29/10 as LBEC failed to meet burden of proof on a number of issues including MACT.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 5

Texas Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal to reinstate the permit. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and Las Brisas Energy Center, LLC sought to overturn the Court of Appeals decision but moved to have their appeal dismissed in August 2013.  For defense, expert witness in unlawful detainer case involving a gasoline station, minimart, and residential property with contamination from leaking underground storage tanks.

Reviewed agency files and inspected site. Presented expert testimony on July 6, 2009, on causes of, nature and extent of subsurface contamination. A. Singh v. S. Assaedi, in Contra Costa County Superior Court, CA. Settled August 2009.
 For plaintiffs, expert witness on netting and enforceability for refinery being upgraded to process tar sands crude. Reviewed produced documents. Prepared expert and rebuttal reports addressing use of emission factors for baseline, omitted sources including coker, flares, tank landings and cleaning, and enforceability. Deposed. In the Matter of Objection to the Issuance of Significant Source Modification Permit No. 089-25484-00453 to BP Products North America Inc., Whiting Business Unit, Save the Dunes Council, Inc., Sierra Club., Inc., Hoosier Environmental Council et al., Petitioners, B. P. Products North American, Respondents/Permittee, before the Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication. Case settled.
 For plaintiffs, expert witness on BACT, MACT, and enforceability in appeal of Title V permit issued to 600 MW coal-fired power plant burning Powder River Basin coal. Prepared technical comments on draft air permit. Reviewed record on appeal, drafted BACT, MACT, and enforceability pre-filed testimony. Drafted MACT and enforceability pre-filed rebuttal testimony. Deposed March 24, 2009. Testified June 10, 2009. In Re: Southwestern Electric Power Company, Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission, Consolidated Docket No. 08-006-P. Recommended Decision issued December 9, 2009 upholding issued permit. Commission adopted Recommended Decision January 22, 2010.  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 (1989- 1992) at Wabash Units 2, 3 and 5. Reviewed produced documents, prepared expert and rebuttal report on historic and current-day BACT for NOx and SO2, control costs, and excess emissions of NOx, SO2, and mercury. Deposed 10/21/08. United States et al. v. Cinergy, et al., In U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Civil Action No. IP99-1693 C-M/S. Testified 2/3/09. Memorandum Opinion & Order 5-29-09 requiring shutdown of Wabash River Units 2, 3, 5 by September 30, 2009, run at baseline until shutdown, and permanently surrender SO2 emission allowances.  For plaintiffs, expert witness in liability phase of civil action relating to alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, for three historic modifications (1997-2001) at two portland cement plants involving three cement kilns. Reviewed produced documents, analyzed CEMS data covering subject period, prepared netting analysis for NOx, SO
2 and CO, and prepared expert and rebuttal reports. United States v. Cemex California PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 6

Cement, In U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division, Case No. ED CV 07-00223-GW (JCRx). Settled 1/15/09.
 For intervenors Clean Wisconsin and Citizens Utility Board, prepared data requests, reviewed discovery and expert report. Prepared prefiled direct, rebuttal and surrebuttal testimony on cost to extend life of existing Oak Creek Units 5-8 and cost to address future regulatory requirements to determine whether to control or shutdown one or more of the units. Oral testimony 2/5/08. Application for a Certificate of Authority to Install Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization and Selective Catalytic Reduction Facilities and Associated Equipment for Control of Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions at Oak Creek Power Plant Units 5, 6, 7 and 8, WPSC Docket No. 6630-CE-299.
 For plaintiffs, expert witness on alternatives analysis and BACT for NOx, SO2, total PM10, and sulfuric acid mist in appeal of PSD permit issued to 1200 MW coal fired power plant burning Powder River Basin and/or Central Appalachian coal (Longleaf). Assisted in drafting technical comments on NOx on draft permit. Prepared expert disclosure. Presented 8+ days of direct and rebuttal expert testimony. Attended all 21 days of evidentiary hearing from 9/5/07 – 10/30/07 assisting in all aspects of hearing. Friends of the Chatahooche and Sierra Club v. Dr. Carol Couch, Director, Environmental Protection Division of Natural Resources Department, Respondent, and Longleaf Energy Associates, Intervener. ALJ Final Decision 1/11/08 denying petition. ALJ Order vacated & remanded for further proceedings, Fulton County Superior Court, 6/30/08. Court of Appeals of GA remanded the case with directions that the ALJ's final decision be vacated to consider the evidence under the correct standard of review, July 9, 2009. The ALJ issued an opinion April 2, 2010 in favor of the applicant.

Final permit issued April 2010.
 For plaintiffs, expert witness on diesel exhaust 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 on NOx emissions and BACT in case alleging failure to obtain necessary permits and install controls on gas-fired combined-cycle turbines. Prepared and reviewed (applicant analyses) of NOx emissions, BACT analyses (water injection, SCR, ultra low NOx burners), and cost-effectiveness analyses based on site visit, plant operating records, stack tests, CEMS data, and turbine and catalyst vendor design information.

Participated in negotiations to scope out consent order. United States v. Nevada Power. Case settled June 2007, resulting in installation of dry low NOx burners (5 ppm NOx averaged over 1 hr) on four units and a separate solar array at a local business.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 7

 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, and 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 SO 2 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. Settlement announced 10/9/07.
 For plaintiffs, expert witness on BACT, enforceability, and alternatives analysis in appeal of 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. Missouri Supreme Court denied review of adverse lower court rulings August 2007.  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.

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.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 8

 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. The Final Order, issued 2/10/06, lowered the NOx BACT limit from 0.07 lb/MMBtu to 0.06 lb/MMBtu based on a 30-day average, added a BACT SO2 control efficiency, and required a

0.0005% high efficiency drift eliminator as BACT for the cooling tower. The modified permit, including these provisions, was issued 3/28/07. Additional appeals in progress.  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. Proposed revisions to standards of performance for petroleum refineries published 72 FR 27178 (5/14/07).

 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. Order issued 10-1-07 denying petition.  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 draft petition and reply brief appealing PSD permit to U.S. EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). Order denying review issued 12/21/05. In re Newmont Nevada Energy Investment, LLC, TS Power Plant, PSD Appeal No. 05-04 (EAB 2005).  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 prepared responses. Prepared declaration and presented 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 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 9

March 2005. Case remanded by Court of Appeals to trial court to direct SCAQMD to re- evaluate the potential environmental significance of NOx emissions resulting from the project in accordance with court’s opinion. California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate Division, on December 18, 2007, affirmed in part (as to baseline) and denied in part.

Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District and ConocoPhillips and Carlos Valdez et al v. South Coast Air Quality Management District and ConocoPhillips. Certified for partial publication 1/16/08. Appellate Court opinion upheld by CA Supreme Court 3/15/10. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310.
 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). Court ruled the Act requires all Title V permits to contain monitoring requirements to assure compliance. Sierra Club v. EPA, 536 F.3d 673 (D.C. Cir. 2008).  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 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 10

turbines to successfully establish plaintiff standing. Sierra Club et al. v. Georgia Power Company (Northern District of Georgia).
 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, SO
2, 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 CO
2 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 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).

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 11

 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 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.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 12

 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 110 coal, gas, oil, biomass, and pet coke-fired power plants generating over 75,000 MW of electricity. These included base-load, combined cycle, simple cycle, and peaker power plants in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and elsewhere. Prepared analyses of and comments on applications for certification, preliminary and final staff assessments, and various air, water, wastewater, and solid waste permits issued by local agencies. Presented written and oral testimony before various administrative bodies 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 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 13

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.
 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.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 14

 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 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 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 15

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 advice 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.
 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.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 16

 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. Represented neighbors on technical advisory committee established by port to implement the air quality mitigation program. Program successfully implemented.
 Assisted construction unions in challenging permitting action for a California hazardous waste incinerator. Prepared technical comments on draft permit, assisted counsel prepare appeal of EPA permit to the Environmental Appeals Board. Participated in settlement discussions on technical issues with applicant and EPA Region 9. Case settled.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 17

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

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 18

 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 (PARTIAL LIST)
 In June to August 2020, researched and wrote 69 pages of comments on inadequate project description, construction impacts, operational air quality impacts, cumulative air quality impacts, public health impacts, valley fever, hazards, geologic impacts, water use, CEC licensing, and extended lifetime impacts for the repower of a geothermal power plant in Imperial County.
 In June 2020, review revised quarry reclamation plan and draft 27 pages of comments on proposed modification.
 In June and July 2020, researched and wrote 23 pages of comments on cement terminal at Port of Stockton on construction impacts, emission baseline, operational emissions, and greenhouse gas mitigation.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 19

 In May 2020, researched and wrote 10 pages of comments on FEIR for a new apartment project in Contra Costa County on GHG emissions from vegetation removal, mobile sources, and water use and mitigation for same.
 In March/April 2020, researched and wrote 50 pages of comments on IS/MND for battery energy storage project in San Jose (Hummingbird) on inadequate project description, criteria pollutant and GHG emissions, significant and unmitigated energy impacts, cumulative impacts, construction impacts, public health impacts from BESS accidents, and battery handling and transportation accidents. Wrote 15 pages of responses to comments on vendor specifications, battery composition, cumulative impacts, construction impacts, fire control methods, and battery accidents.
 In April 2020, researched and wrote 47 pages of comments on IS/MND for data center in Santa Clara (SV1) on operational NOx emissions; out-of-district emissions; interbasin pollutant transport; omitted emission sources; GHG compliance with plans, policies and regulations; indirect GHG emissions; air quality impacts; construction emissions; cumulative impacts; and risk of upset from battery accidents.
 In March 2020, researched and wrote 30 pages of comments on IS/MND for data center in San Jose (Hummingbird) on operational GHG and criteria pollutant emissions, cumulative impacts, and public health risks. Research and write responses to comments.  In February-March 2020, researched and wrote 30 pages on an IS/MND for a data center in San Jose (Stack) on operational NOx and GHG emissions, cumulative impacts, heath risks, and odor.
 In February 2020, researched and wrote 33 pages of comments on Initial Study for a battery storage facility in Ventura County (Orni) on criteria pollutant and GHG emissions, worker and public health impacts, cumulative impacts, valley fever, and consistency with general plan.
 In February 2020, researched and wrote 20 pages of comments on valley fever in response to applicant’s global response to comments on Valley Fever for a wind project in San Diego County.
 In January 2020, researched and wrote 32 pages of comments on the Orni battery storage facility (BESS) on incomplete project description, cumulative GHG and NOx impacts, BESS accidents, and health impacts, including soil contamination and valley fever.  In January 2020, research and wrote 41 pages of comments on the DEIR for the NuStar Port of Stockton Liquid Bulk Terminal on operational emission calculations, significant NOx emissions, significant GHG emissions. GHG mitigation, and cumulative impacts.  In December 2019, researched and wrote 3 pages of comments on the Silverstrand Grid battery storage facility on greenhouse gas emissions.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 20

 In December 2019, researched and wrote 15 pages of comments on the Initial Study for the K2 Pure – Chlorine Rail Transportation Curtailment Project, including on air quality baseline, project description, emissions, cancer risks, risk of upset.  In November 2019, reviewed agency files and researched and wrote 42 pages of comments on the Belridge Solar Project on compliance with local zoning ordinances, water quality impacts, air quality impacts, and worker and public health impacts due to soil contamination and valley fever.
 In October 2019, researched and wrote 49 pages of comments on IS/MND for data center in Santa Clara, CA on operational criteria pollutants (mobile sources, off-site electricity generation, emergency generators), ambient air quality impacts, greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation, and cumulative impacts.
 In October 2019, researched and wrote 9 pages of comments on the Application, Statement of Basis and draft Permit to Construct and Temporary Permit to Operate for proposed changes at the Paramount Refinery to facilitate refining of biomass-based feedstock to produce renewable fuels.
 In September 2019, reviewed City of Sunnyvale’s file on Google’s proposed Central Utility Plant and researched and wrote 34 pages of comments on construction and operational air quality impacts, cumulative impacts, and battery fire and explosion impacts. In October 2019, researched and wrote 15 pages of responses to comments.  In August 2019, research and wrote 37 pages of comments on the DSEIR for the Le Conte Battery Energy Storage System on GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous material impacts, and health impacts.
 In August 2019, researched and wrote 38 pages of comments on IS/MND for the Hanford- Lakeside Dairy digester Project, Kings County, on project description (piecemealing), cumulative impacts, construction impacts, air quality impacts, valley fever and risk of upset.  In July 2019, researched and wrote 48 pages of comments on IS/MND for the Five Points Pipeline Dairy Digester Cluster Project, including on air quality, cumulative impacts, worker and public health impacts (including on pesticide-contaminated soils), Valley Fever, construction air quality impacts, and risk of upset.
 In June 2019, researched and wrote 15 pages of responses to comments on IS/MND for SV1 Data Center, including operational NOx emissions, air quality analyses, construction emissions, battery hazards, and mitigation plans for noise, vibration, risk management, storm water pollution, and emergency response and evacuation plans.  In June 2019, researched and wrote 30 pages of comments on DEIR for the Humboldt Wind Energy Project on fire and aesthetic impacts of transmission line, construction air quality impacts and mitigation, and greenhouse gas emissions.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 21

 In May 2019, researched and wrote 25 pages of comments on the DEIR for the ExxonMobil Interim Trucking for Santa Ynez Phased Restart Project on project description, baseline, and mitigation.
 In April 2019, researched and wrote a 16 page letter critiquing the adequacy of the FEIR for CalAm Desalination Project to support a Monterey County Combined Development Permit, consisting of a Use Permit, an Administrative Permit, and Design Approval for the Desalination Plant and Carmel Valley Pump Station.
 In April 2019, researched and wrote 22 pages of comments on DEIR for the Eco-Energy Liquid Bulk Terminal at the Port of Stockton on emissions, air quality impact mitigation, and health risk assessment.
 In March 2019, researched and wrote 43 pages of comments on DEIR for Contanda Renewable Diesel Bulk Liquid Terminal at the Port of Stockton on operational emissions, air quality impacts and mitigation and health risks.
 In February 2019, researched and wrote 36 pages of comments on general cumulative impacts, air quality, accidents, and valley fever for IS/MND for biogas cluster project in Kings County.
 In January 2019, researched and wrote 30 pages of comments on air quality and valley fever for IS/MND for energy storage facility in Kings County.  In December 2018, researched and wrote 11 pages of comments on air quality for IS/MND for biomass gasification facility in Madera County.
 In December 2018, researched and wrote 10 pages of responses to comments on IS/MND for a wind energy project in Riverside County.
 In December 2018, researched and wrote 12 pages of responses to comments on IS/MND for a large Safeway fueling station in Petaluma. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to require an EIR.
 In November 2018, researched and wrote 30 pages of comments on IS/MND on wind energy project in Riverside County on construction health risks, odor impacts, waste disposal, transportation, construction emissions and mitigation and Valley Fever.  In November 2018, researched and wrote 32 pages of comments on the DEIR for a solar energy generation and storage project in San Bernardino County on hazards, health risks, odor, construction emissions and mitigation, and Valley Fever.  In September 2018, researched and wrote 36 pages of comments on the FEIR for the Newland Sierra Project including on greenhouse gas emissions, construction emissions, and cumulative impacts.
 In August 2018, researched and wrote 20 pages of comments on the health risk assessment in the IS/MND for a large Safeway fueling station in Petaluma.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 22

 In August 2018, researched and wrote responses to comments on DEIR for the Newland Sierra Project, San Diego County on greenhouse gas emissions, construction emissions, odor, and Valley Fever.
 In July/August 2018, researched and wrote 12 pages of comments on DEIR for proposed Doheny Desal Project, on GHG, criteria pollutant, and TAC emissions and public health impacts during construction and indirect emissions during operation.  In June 2018, researched and wrote 12 pages of technical comments rebutting NDDH responses to comments on Meridian Davis Refinery.
 In April 2018, researched and wrote 26 pages of comments on greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation as proposed in the San Diego County Climate Action Plan.  In April 2018, researched and wrote 24 pages of comments on the FEIR for Monterey County water supply project, including GHG mitigation, air quality impacts and mitigation, and Valley Fever.
 In March-June 2018, researched and wrote 37 pages of comments on the IS/MND for the 2305 Mission College Boulevard Data Center, Santa Clara, California and responded to responses to comments.
 In March 2018, researched and wrote 40 pages of comments on the IS/MND for the Diablo Energy Storage Facility in Pittsburg, California.
 In March 2018, researched and wrote 19 pages of comments on Infill Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Legacy@Livermore Project on CalEEMod emission calculations, including NOx and PM10 and construction health risk assessment, including Valley Fever.
 In January 2018, researched and wrote 28 pages of comments on draft Permit to Construct for the Davis Refinery Project, North Dakota, as a minor source of criteria pollutants and HAPs.  In December 2017, researched and wrote 19 pages of comments on DEIR for the Rialto Bioenergy Facility, Rialto, California.
 In November and December 2017, researched and wrote 6 pages of comments on the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District’s Preliminary Determination if Compliance (PDOC) for Mission Rock Energy Center.
 In November 2017, researched and wrote 11 pages of comments on control technology evaluation for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry Residual Risk and Technology Review.  In September and November 2017, prepared comments on revised Negative Declaration for Delicato Winery in San Joaquin County, California.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 23

 In October and November 2017, researched and wrote comments on North City Project Pure Water San Diego Program DEIR/DEIS to reclaim wastewater for municipal use.  In August 2017, reviewed DEIR on a new residential community in eastern San Diego County (Newland Sierra) and research and wrote 60 pages of comments on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and health impacts, including Valley Fever.  In August 2017, reviewed responses to comments on Part 70 operating permit for IGP Methanol’s Gulf Coast Methanol Complex, near Myrtle Grove, Louisiana, and researched and wrote comments on metallic HAP issues.
 In July 2017, reviewed the FEIS for an expansion of the Port of Gulfport and researched and wrote 10 pages of comments on air quality and public health.  In June 2017, reviewed and prepared technical report on an Application for a synthetic minor source construction permit for a new Refinery in North Dakota.  In June 2017, reviewed responses to NPCA and other comments on the BP Cherry Point Refinery modifications and assisted counsel in evaluating issues to appeal, including GHG BACT, coker heater SCR cost effectiveness analysis, and SO 2 BACT.
 In June 2017, reviewed Part 70 Operating Permit Renewal/Modification for the Noranda Alumina LC/Gramercy Holdings I, LLC alumina processing plant, St. James, Louisiana, and prepared comments on HAP emissions from bauxite feedstock.  In May and June 2017, reviewed FEIR on Tesoro Integration Project and prepared responses to comments on the DEIR.
 In May 2017, prepared comments on tank VOC and HAP emissions from Tesoro Integration Project, based on real time monitoring at the Tesoro and other refineries in the SCAQMD.  In April 2017, prepared comments on Negative Declaration for Delicato Winery in San Joaquin County, California.
 In March 2017, reviewed Negative Declaration for Ellmore geothermal facility in Imperial County, California and prepared summary of issues.
 In March 2017, prepared response to Phillips 66 Company’s Appeal of the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission’s Decision Denying the Rail Spur Extension Project Proposed for the Santa Maria Refinery.
 In February 2017, researched and wrote comments on Kalama draft Title V permit for 10,000 MT/day methanol production and marine export facility in Kalama, Washington.  In January 2017, researched and wrote 51 pages of comments on proposed Title V and PSD permits for the St. James Methanol Plant, St. James Louisiana, on BACT and enforceability of permit conditions.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 24

 In December 2016, researched and wrote comments on draft Title V Permit for Yuhuang Chemical Inc. Methanol Plant, St. James, Louisiana, responding to EPA Order addressing enforceability issues.
 In November 2016, researched and wrote comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the AES Battery Energy Storage Facility, Long Beach, CA.  In November 2016, researched and wrote comments on Campo Verde Battery Energy Storage System Draft Environmental Impact Report.
 In October 2016, researched and wrote comments on Title V Permit for NuStar Terminal Operations Partnership L.P, Stockton, CA.
 In October 2016, prepared expert report, Technical Assessment of Achieving the 40 CFR Part 423 Zero Discharge Standard for Bottom Ash Transport Water at the Belle River Power Plant, East China, Michigan. Reported resulted in a 2 year reduction in compliance date for elimination of bottom ash transport water. 1/30/17 DEQ Letter.  In September 2016, researched and wrote comments on Proposed Title V Permit and Environmental Assessment Statement, Yuhuang Chemical Inc. Methanol Plant, St. James, Louisiana.
 In September 2016, researched and wrote response to “Further Rebuttal in Support of Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-1, Denying Use Permit Application 12PLN- 00063 and Declining to Certify Final Environmental Impact Report for the Valero Benicia Crude-by-Rail Project.
 In August 2016, reviewed and prepared comments on manuscript: Hutton et al., Freshwater Flows to the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary over Nine Decades: Trends Evaluation.  In August/September 2016, researched and wrote comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Chevron Long Wharf Maintenance and Efficiency Project.  In July 2016, researched and wrote comments on the Ventura County APCD Preliminary Determination of Compliance and the California Energy Commission Revised Preliminary Staff Assessment for the Puente Power Project.
 In June 2016, researched and wrote comments on an Ordinance (1) Amending the Oakland Municipal Code to Prohibit the Storage and Handling of Coal and Coke at Bulk Material Facilities or Terminals Throughout the City of Oakland and (2) Adopting CEQA Exemption Findings and supporting technical reports. Council approved Ordinance on an 8 to 0 vote on June 27, 2016.
 In May 2016, researched and wrote comments on Draft Title V Permit and Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Tesoro Los Angeles Refinery Integration and Compliance Project.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 25

 In March 2016, researched and wrote comments on Valero’s Appeal of Planning Commission’s Denial of Valero Crude-by-Rail Project.
 In February 2016, researched and wrote comments on Final Environmental Impact Report, Santa Maria Rail Spur Project.
 In February 2016, researched and wrote comments on Final Environmental Impact Report, Valero Benicia Crude by Rail Project.
 In January 2016, researched and wrote comments on Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.  In November 2015, researched and wrote comments on Final Environmental Impact Report for Revisions to the Kern County Zoning Ordinance – 2015(C) (Focused on Oil and Gas Local Permitting), November 2015.
 In October 2015, researched and wrote comments on Revised Draft Environmental Report, Valero Benicia Crude by Rail Project.
 In September 2015, prepared report, “Environmental, Health and Safety Impacts of the Proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, and presented oral testimony on September 21, 2015 before Oakland City Council on behalf of the Sierra Club.  In September 2015, researched and wrote comments on revisions to two chapters of EPA’s Air Pollution Control Cost Manual: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0341.  In June 2015, researched and wrote comments on DEIR for the CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project.
 In April 2015, researched and wrote comments on proposed Title V Operating Permit Revision and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Arizona Public Service’s Ocotillo Power Plant Modernization Project (5 GE LMS100 105-MW simple cycle turbines operated as peakers), in Tempe, Arizona; Final permit appealed to EAB.  In March 2015, researched and wrote “Comments on Proposed Title V Air Permit, Yuhuang Chemical Inc. Methanol Plant, St. James, Louisiana”. Client filed petition objecting to the permit. EPA granted majority of issues. In the Matter of Yuhuang Chemical Inc. Methanol Plant, St. James Parish, Louisiana, Permit No. 2560-00295-V0, Issued by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Petition No. VI-2015-03, Order Responding to the Petitioners’ Request for Objection to the Issuance of a Title V Operating Permit, September 1, 2016.
 In February 2015, prepared compilation of BACT cost effectiveness values in support of comments on draft PSD Permit for Bonanza Power Project.  In January 2015, prepared cost effectiveness analysis for SCR for a 500-MW coal fire power plant, to address unpermitted upgrades in 2000.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 26

 In January 2015, researched and wrote comments on Revised Final Environmental Impact Report for the Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project. Communities for a Better Environment et al. v. Contra Costa County et al. Contra Costa County (Superior Court, Contra Costa County, Case No. MSN15-0301, December 1, 2016).
 In December 2014, researched and wrote “Report on Bakersfield Crude Terminal Permits to Operate.” In response, the U.S. EPA cited the Terminal for 10 violations of the Clean Air Act. The Fifth Appellate District Court upheld the finding in this report in CBE et al v. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and Bakersfield Crude Terminal LLC et al, Super. Ct. No. 284013, June 23, 2017.
 In December 2014, researched and wrote comments on Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project.
 In November 2014, researched and wrote comments on Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for Phillips 66 Rail Spur Extension Project and Crude Unloading Project, Santa Maria, CA to allow the import of tar sands crudes.
 In November 2014, researched and wrote comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for Phillips 66 Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Project, responding to the California Supreme Court Decision, Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310.
 In November 2014, researched and wrote comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Tesoro Avon Marine Oil Terminal Lease Consideration.  In October 2014, prepared: “Report on Hydrogen Cyanide Emissions from Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units”, pursuant to the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards, 79 FR 36880.
 In October 2014, researched and wrote technical comments on Final Environmental Impact Reports for Alon Bakersfield Crude Flexibility Project to build a rail terminal to allow the import/export of tar sands and Bakken crude oils and to upgrade an existing refinery to allow it to process a wide range of crudes.
 In October 2014, researched and wrote technical comments on the Title V Permit Renewal and three De Minimus Significant Revisions for the Tesoro Logistics Marine Terminal in the SCAQMD.
 In September 2014, researched and wrote technical comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Valero Crude by Rail Project.
 In August 2014, for EPA Region 6, prepared technical report on costing methods for upgrades to existing scrubbers at coal-fired power plants.  In July 2014, researched and wrote technical comments on Draft Final Environmental Impact Reports for Alon Bakersfield Crude Flexibility Project to build a rail terminal to allow the PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 27

import/export of tar sands and Bakken crude oils and to upgrade an existing refinery to allow it to process a wide range of crudes.
 In June 2014, researched and wrote technical report on Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration for the Tesoro Logistics Storage Tank Replacement and Modification Project.  In May 2014, researched and wrote technical comments on Intent to Approve a new refinery and petroleum transloading operation in Utah.
 In March and April 2014, prepared declarations on air permits issued for two crude-by-rail terminals in California, modified to switch from importing ethanol to importing Bakken crude oils by rail and transferring to tanker cars. Permits were issued without undergoing CEQA review. One permit was upheld by the San Francisco Superior Court as statute of limitations had run. The Sacramento Air Quality Management District withdrew the second one due to failure to require BACT and conduct CEQA review.  In March 2014, researched and wrote technical report on Negative Declaration for a proposed modification of the air permit for a bulk petroleum and storage terminal to the allow the import of tar sands and Bakken crude oil by rail and its export by barge, under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
 In February 2014, researched and wrote technical report on proposed modification of air permit for midwest refinery upgrade/expansion to process tar sands crudes.  In January 2014, prepared cost estimates to capture, transport, and use CO2 in enhanced oil recovery, from the Freeport LNG project based on both Selexol and Amine systems.  In January 2014, researched and wrote technical report on Draft Environmental Impact Report for Phillips 66 Rail Spur Extension Project, Santa Maria, CA. Comments addressed project description (piecemealing, crude slate), risk of upset analyses, mitigation measures, alternative analyses and cumulative impacts.
 In November 2013, researched and wrote technical report on the Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project, Rodeo, CA. Comments addressed project description (piecemealing, crude slate) and air quality impacts.
 In September 2013, researched and wrote technical report on the Draft Authority to Construct Permit for the Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project Environmental Impact Report and Declaration in Support of Appeal and Petition for Stay, U.S. Department of the Interior, Board of Land Appeals, Appeal of Decision Record for the Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project.
 In September 2013, researched and wrote technical report on Effluent Limitation Guidelines for Best Available Technology Economically Available (BAT) for Bottom Ash Transport Waters from Coal-Fired Power Plants in the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 28

 In July 2013, researched and wrote technical report on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Valero Crude by Rail Project, Benicia, California, Use Permit Application 12PLN-00063.
 In July 2013, researched and wrote technical report on fugitive particulate matter emissions from coal train staging at the proposed Coyote Island Terminal, Oregon, for draft Permit No. 25-0015-ST-01.
 In July 2013, researched and wrote technical comments on air quality impacts of the Finger Lakes LPG Storage Facility as reported in various Environmental Impact Statements.  In July 2013, researched and wrote technical comments on proposed Greenhouse Gas PSD Permit for the Celanese Clear Lake Plant, including cost analysis of CO2 capture, transport, and sequestration.
 In June/July 2013, researched and wrote technical comments on proposed Draft PSD Preconstruction Permit for Greenhouse Gas Emission for the ExxonMobil Chemical Company Baytown Olefins Plant, including cost analysis of CO2 capture, transport, and sequestration.
 In June 2013, researched and wrote technical report on a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a new rail terminal at the Valero Benicia Refinery to import increased amounts of "North American" crudes. Comments addressed air quality impacts of refining increased amounts of tar sands crudes.
 In June 2013, researched and wrote technical report on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the California Ethanol and Power Imperial Valley 1 Project.  In May 2013, researched and wrote comments on draft PSD permit for major expansion of midwest refinery to process 100% tar sands crudes, including a complex netting analysis involving debottlenecking, piecemealing, and BACT analyses.  In April 2013, researched and wrote technical report on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the Keystone XL Pipeline on air quality impacts from refining increased amount of tar sands crudes at Refineries in PADD 3.  In October 2012, researched and wrote technical report on the Environmental Review for the Coyote Island Terminal Dock at the Port of Morrow on fugitive particulate matter emissions.  In October 2012-October 2014, review and evaluate Flint Hills West Application for an expansion/modification for increased (Texas, Eagle Ford Shale) crude processing and related modification, including netting and BACT analysis. Assist in settlement discussions.  In February 2012, researched and wrote comments on BART analysis in PA Regional Haze SIP, 77 FR 3984 (Jan. 26, 2012). On Sept. 29, 2015, a federal appeals court overturned the U.S. EPA’s approval of this plan, based in part on my comments, concluding “..we will vacate the 2014 Final Rule to the extent it approved Pennsylvania’s source-specific BART PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 29

analysis and remand to the EPA for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.” Nat’l Parks Conservation Assoc. v. EPA, 3d Cir., No. 14-3147, 9/19/15.  Prepared cost analyses and comments on New York’s proposed BART determinations for NOx, SO2, and PM and EPA’s proposed approval of BART determinations for Danskammer Generating Station under New York Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and Federal Implementation Plan, 77 FR 51915 (August 28, 2012).
 Prepared cost analyses and comments on NOx BART determinations for Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for State of Nevada, 77 FR 23191 (April 18, 2012) and 77 FR 25660 (May 1, 2012).
 Prepared analyses of and comments on New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 77 FR 22392 (April 13, 2012).
 Researched and wrote comments on CASPR-BART emission equivalency and NOx and PM BART determinations in EPA proposed approval of State Implementation Plan for Pennsylvania Regional Haze Implementation Plan, 77 FR 3984 (January 26, 2012).  Researched and wrote comments and statistical analyses on hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emission controls, monitoring, compliance methods, and the use of surrogates for acid gases, organic HAPs, and metallic HAPs for proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, 76 FR 24976 (May 3, 2011).
 Prepared cost analyses and comments on NOx BART determinations and emission reductions for proposed Federal Implementation Plan for Four Corners Power Plant, 75 FR 64221 (October 19, 2010).
 Prepared cost analyses and comments on NOx BART determinations for Colstrip Units 1- 4 for Montana State Implementation Plan and Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan, 77 FR 23988 (April 20, 2010).
 For EPA Region 8, prepared report: Revised BART Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Tail-End Selective Catalytic Reduction at the Basin Electric Power Cooperative Leland Olds Station Unit 2 Final Report, March 2011, in support of 76 FR 58570 (Sept. 21, 2011).  For EPA Region 6, prepared report: Revised BART Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Selective Catalytic Reduction at the Public Service Company of New Mexico San Juan Generating Station, November 2010, in support of 76 FR 52388 (Aug. 22, 2011).  For EPA Region 6, prepared report: Revised BART Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Flue Gas Desulfurization at Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units in Oklahoma: Sooner Units 1 & 2, Muskogee Units 4 & 5, Northeastern Units 3 &4, October 2010, in support of 76 FR 16168 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 30

(March 26, 2011). My work was upheld in: State of Oklahoma v. EPA, App. Case 12-9526 (10th Cri. July 19, 2013).
 Identified errors in N2O emission factors in the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, 40 CFR 98, and prepared technical analysis to support Petition for Rulemaking to Correct Emissions Factors in the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, filed with EPA on 10/28/10.
 Assisted interested parties develop input for and prepare comments on the Information Collection Request for Petroleum Refinery Sector NSPS and NESHAP Residual Risk and Technology Review, 75 FR 60107 (9/29/10).
 Technical reviewer of EPA's "Emission Estimation Protocol for Petroleum Refineries," posted for public comments on CHIEF on 12/23/09, prepared in response to the City of Houston's petition under the Data Quality Act (March 2010).  Researched and wrote comments on SCR cost effectiveness for EPA's Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Assessment of Anticipated Visibility Improvements at Surrounding Class I Areas and Cost Effectiveness of Best Available Retrofit Technology for Four Corners Power Plant and Navajo Generating Station, 74 FR 44313 (August 28, 2009).  Researched and wrote comments on Proposed Rule for Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation and Processing Plants, 74 FR 25304 (May 27, 2009).  Prepared comments on draft PSD permit for major expansion of midwest refinery to process up to 100% tar sands crudes. Participated in development of monitoring and controls to mitigate impacts and in negotiating a Consent Decree to settle claims in 2008.  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.
 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).

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 31

 Prepared Authority to Construct Permit for remediation of a large petroleum-contaminated site on the California Central Coast. Negotiated conditions with agencies and secured permits.
 Prepared Authority to Construct Permit for remediation of a former oil field on the California 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, Title V, 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 California 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.
 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 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 32

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.
 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.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 33

 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 40 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;

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;
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 34

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 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.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 35

 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.

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.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 36

 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.
 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.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 37

PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS (Partial List - Representative Publications) J.P. Fox, P.H. Hutton, D.J. Howes, A.J. Draper, and L. Sears, Reconstructing the Natural Hydrology of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Watershed, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, Special Issue: Predictions under Change: Water, Earth, and Biota in the Anthropocene, v. 19, pp. 4257-4274, 2015. http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/19/4257/2015/hess-19-4257-2015.pdf. See also:

Estimates of Natural and Unimpaired Flows for the Central Valley of California: Water Years 1922-2014 at: https://msb.water.ca.gov/documents/86728/a702a57f-ae7a-41a3-8bff- 722e144059d6.

D. Howes, P. Fox, and P. Hutton, Evapotranspiration from Natural Vegetation in the Central Valley of California: Monthly Grass Reference Based Vegetation Coefficients and the Dual Crop Coefficient Approach, Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, v.20, no. 10, October 2015.

Phyllis Fox and Lindsey Sears, Natural Vegetation in the Central Valley of California, June 2014, Prepared for State Water Contractors and San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, 311 pg.

J.P. Fox, T.P. Rose, and T.L. Sawyer, Isotope Hydrology of a Spring-fed Waterfall in Fractured Volcanic Rock, 2007.

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.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 38

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.

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.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 39

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 Contractors, Exhibit 262, 58 pp., 1987;
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/deltaflow/docs/exhi bits/ccwd/spprt_docs/ccwd_fox_1987a.pdf.

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.

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.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 40

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.

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 co- author of four articles in report).

D.C. Girvin and J.P. Fox, On-Line Zeeman Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy for Mercury Analysis in Oil Shale Gases, U.S. EPA Report EPA-600/7-80-130, June 1980.

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).

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 41

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, 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 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 42

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.

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).

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 43

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).

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.

PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 44

POST GRADUATE COURSES
(Partial)

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 Am erica/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, 8/10/06 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, What Mercury Technologies Are Available, 9/14/06 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, 11/2/06 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Dry Scrubbers, 11/9/06
Cost Estimating and Tricks of the Trade – A Practical Approach, PDH P159, 11/19/06 Process Equipment Cost Estimating by Ratio & Proportion, PDH G127 11/19/06 Power Plant Air Quality Decisions, Power-Gen 11/06
McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, WE Energies Hg Control Update, 1/12/07 Negotiating Permit Conditions, EEUC, 1/21/07
BACT for Utilities, EEUC, 1/21/07
McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Chinese FGD/SCR Program & Impact on World, 2/1/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury Control Cost & Performance, 2/15/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury CEMS, 4/12/07
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 45

Coal-to-Liquids – A Timely Revival, 9th Electric Power, 4/30/07 Advances in Multi-Pollutant and CO2 Control Technologies, 9th Electric Power, 4/30/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Measurement & Control of PM2.5, 5/17/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Co-firing and Gasifying Biomass, 5/31/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury Cost and Performance, 6/14/07 Ethanol 101: Points to Consider When Building an Ethanol Plant, BBI International, 6/26/07 Low Cost Optimization of Flue Gas Desulfurization Equipment, Fluent, Inc., 7/6/07.

McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, CEMS for Measurement of NH3, SO3, Low NOx, 7/12/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury Removal Status & Cost, 8/9/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Filter Media Selection for Coal-Fired Boilers, 9/13/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Catalyst Performance on NOx, SO3, Mercury, 10/11/07 PRB Coal Users Group, PRB 101, 12/4/07
McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury Control Update, 10/25/07 Circulating Fluidized Bed Boilers, Their Operation, Control and Optimization, Power-Gen, 12/8/07
Renewable Energy Credits & Greenhouse Gas Offsets, Power-Gen, 12/9/07 Petroleum Engineering & Petroleum Downstream Marketing, PDH K117, 1/5/08 Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Manufacturing, PDH C191, 1/6/08 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, NOx Reagents, 1/17/08
McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury Control, 1/31/08
McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury Monitoring, 3/6/08
McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, SCR Catalysts, 3/13/08
Argus 2008 Climate Policy Outlook, 3/26/08
Argus Pet Coke Supply and Demand 2008, 3/27/08
McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, SO3 Issues and Answers, 3/27/08 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury Control, 4/24/08
McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Co-Firing Biomass, 5/1/08
McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Coal Gasification, 6/5/08
McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Spray Driers vs. CFBs, 7/3/08 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Air Pollution Control Cost Escalation, 9/25/08 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Greenhouse Gas Strategies for Coal Fired Power Plant Operators, 10/2/08
McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury and Toxics Monitoring, 2/5/09 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Dry Precipitator Efficiency Improvements, 2/12/09 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Coal Selection & Impact on Emissions, 2/26/09 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, 98% Limestone Scrubber Efficiency, 7/9/09 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Carbon Management Strategies and Technologies, 6/24/10 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Gas Turbine O&M, 7/22/10McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Industrial Boiler MACT – Impact and Control Options, March 10, 2011McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Fuel Impacts on SCR Catalysts, June 30, 2011.

Interest Rates, PDH P204, 3/9/12
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 46

Mechanics Liens, PDHOnline, 2/24/13.

Understanding Concerns with Dry Sorbent Injection as a Coal Plant Pollution Control, Webinar #874-567-839 by Cleanenergy.Org, March 4, 2013
Webinar: Coal-to-Gas Switching: What You Need to Know to Make the Investment, sponsored by PennWell Power Engineering Magazine, March 14, 2013. Available at:
https://event.webcasts.com/viewer/event.jsp?ei=1013472.

EXHIBIT C

Final Negative Declaration/Application
Summary Report
World Oil Tank Installation Project
Port of Long Beach

State Clearinghouse # 2020100119

Prepared for:

Port of Long Beach
415 W. Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, California 90802

Prepared by:

Aspen Environmental Group
5020 Chesebro Road, Suite 200
Agoura Hills, CA 91301

September 2021

Fina
l NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Prepared in Accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970
as Amended
and

APPLICATION SUMMARY REPORT
Prepared in Accordance with the
Certified Port Master Plan and California Coastal Act of 1976 for the
World Oil Tank Installation Project
The na
rrative and attached documents, including the project description and staff analysis constitute a Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the data contained herein, the proposed project has been determined not to have significant adverse environmental impacts and conforms to the stated policies of the Port Master Plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPLICATION SUMMARY REPORT ISSUED FOR PUBLIC REVIEW: OCTOBER 7, 2020 – NOVEMBER 20, 2020
BY: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING: ________________________________ APPLICATION SUMMARY REPORT ADOPTED ON: ________________________________ BY: CITY OF LONG BEACH BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS
Application No. 19-066
State Clearinghouse No. 2020100119

Contents
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 i
Contents
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ iii Introduction to the Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report ................... 1

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Proposed Project Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Environmental Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-1

2. Project Description ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Title ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address ........................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Lead Agency Contact Person and Phone Number .................................................................................................. 2-1

2.4 Project Location .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.5 Project Applicant’s Name and Address ............................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.6 General Plan Designation ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-2

2.7 Zoning .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.8 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting .................................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.9 Project Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2-3

2.10 Project Construction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2-4

2.11 Operations and Maintenance .................................................................................................................................................. 2-8

2.12 Other Permits and Approvals ................................................................................................................................................ 2-10

3. Environmental Determination ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 Environmental Determination ................................................................................................................................................ 3-1

4. Environmental Setting and Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................................................................... 4-5 4 .3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4-7

4.4 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4-15

4.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4-19

4.6 Energy....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-20

4.7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4-22

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-27

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................................... 4-30

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................... 4-35

4.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................................................................... 4-41

4.12 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4-43

4.13 Noise.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-44

4.14 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................................................................ 4-52

4.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-53

4.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 4-56

4.17 Transportation .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4-57

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-60

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................................................................. 4-62

Contents
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 ii

4.20 Wildfire .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-65

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................................................................. 4-67

5. Application Summary Report .......................................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis ................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Consistency with the Port Master Plan ............................................................................................................................ 5-3

6. Report Preparation ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6-1

7. References ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7-1

8. Responses to Comments ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8-1

Appendices
A. Air Quality Emissions
B. Cultural Resources Records Search Report (Confidential) C. Noise Calculations

Tables
Table 2-1 Construction Schedule and Personnel .................................................................................................................. 2-6 Table 2-2 Construction Equipment .................................................................................................................................................. 2-7 Table 2-3 Existing Loading Rack Truck Traffic .......................................................................................................................... 2-8 Table 2-4 Proposed New Loading Rack Truck Traffic ........................................................................................................ 2-9 Table 2-5 Permits that May Be Required for the Proposed Project ................................................................... 2-10 Table 4.3-1 Summary of Unmitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emission Estimates (Pounds Per Day)......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-9 Table 4.3-2 Summary of Unmitigated Maximum Daily Operation Emissions Increase Estimates (Pounds Per Day) ................................................................................................................................................................ 4-11 Table 4.3-3 Summary of Maximum Localized Daily Construction Emission Estimates (Pounds Per Day) ................................................................................................................................................................. 4-12 Table 4.3-4 Summary of Maximum Localized Daily Operation On-Site Emission Increase Estimates (Pounds Per Day) ....................................................................................................................................... 4-13 Table 4.8-1 Summary of Project Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates ............................................................... 4-28 Table 4.8-2 Applicable GHG Emissions Reduction Strategies ...................................................................................... 4-28 Table 4.13-1 Ambient Noise Levels Representative of the Project Area ............................................................... 4-46 Table 4.13- 2 Long Beach Municipal Code Exterior Noise Limits ................................................................................... 4-48 Table 4.13-3 Noise Levels and Use Factors for Construction Equipment.............................................................. 4-49 Table 8-1 Commenters on the Draft IS/ND ............................................................................................................................... 8-1 Figures
Figure 2-1 Project Vicinity ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2 Project Site Plan ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3 Existing Tanks ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2-3 Figure 2-4 Project Site – View Looking West ............................................................................................................................. 2-5 Figure 2-5 Oil/Water Concrete Separator Sump (to be demolished) .................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-6 Staging Area ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 4.13-1 Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................................................................ 4-46 Figure 8-1 Community Grants Program Priority and Eligibility Zones ................................................................ 8-13

Acronyms and Abbreviations
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AB Assembly Bill
AFFF aqueous film forming foam
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
AST aboveground storage tank
BACT Best Available Control Technology
bbl barrel
BMP best management practice
CAAP Clean Air Action Plan
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention
Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCA California Coastal Act
CCC California Coastal Commission
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CGS California Geological Survey
cm centimeter
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
CRP Coastal Resiliency Plan
CTF Cle an Trucks Fund
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DIAL Differential Absorption Light Detection and Ranging DOC California Department of Conservation
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR California Department of Water Resources
ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System
EDR Environmental Data Resources
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration g gravity

Acronyms and Abbreviations
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 iv

GHG g reenhouse gas
HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern
HDP Harbor Development Permit
I Interstate
IP Port-Related Industrial District
IS Initial Study
JAWM Journal of Air and Waste Management
JWPCP Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
LACSD Los Angeles County Sanitation District
LARWQCB Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board LBFD Long Beach Fire Department
LBMC Long Beach Municipal Code
LBPD Long Beach Police Department
LBUSD Long Beach Unified School District
LBWD Long Beach Water Department
Ldn a verage 24-hour sound level
Leq e quivalent sound level
LF linear feet
LNAPL light non-aqueous phase liquid
Lmax m aximum noise level
Lmin m inimum noise level
LST Localized Significance Threshold
LUST leaking underground storage tank
µg microgram
m3 cubic meter
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mils one-thousandth of an inch
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MP Port Manufacturing
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MT m etric tons
MW Megawatt
ND Negative Declaration
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NSR New Source Review
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
PDTR Port Drayage Truck Registry
PM10 particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter
PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter PMP Port Master Plan
POLB/Port Port of Long Beach
PPV peak particle velocity
RAP r ammed aggregate pier
RAST Risk Assessment Standalone Tool
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RVP Reid Vapor Pressure

Acronyms and Abbreviations
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 v

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
sec second
SOx sulfur oxide
SRA source receptor area
SR State Route
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC t oxic air contaminant
TSDF t reatment, storage, and disposal facilities
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFS U.S. Forest Service
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VMT v ehicle miles travelled
VOC v olatile organic compound
WRD Water Replenishment District of Southern California Χ/Q Chi/Q

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 1
1 invisible_toc_marker
Introduction to the Final Negative Declaration and
Application Summary Report
The Port of Long Beach (POLB) prepared a Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) and Application Summary Report for the proposed World Oil Tank Installation Project ( proposed Project) and originally circulated it for public review and comment from October 7, 2020 through November 5, 2020. Based on comments received, the POLB extended the review period to November 20, 2020 for a total of 45 days.

The Draft IS/ND concluded that the proposed Project would not have any significant effects on the environment and that no mitigation measures are required. The public review period, during which interested agencies, organizations, and members of the public were invited to submit written comments, was noticed and conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21091, State CEQA Guidelines 15105, California Coastal Act, and certified Port Master Plan. Notified public agencies include the following:
 California Air Resources Board
 California Coastal Commission
 California Department of
Conservation
 California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Marin Region 7
 California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, South Coast Region 5
 California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection
 California Department of Parks and
Recreation
 California Department of State Parks,
Division of Boating and Waterways
 California Department of Water
Resources
 California Governor’s Office of
Emergency Services
 California Highway Patrol
 California Native American Heritage
Commission
 California Natural Resources Agency
 California Public Utilities Commission
 California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Los Angeles Region 4
 California State Lands Commission
 California Governor’s Office of
Emergency Services
 Department of Toxic Substances
Control
 Office of Historic Preservation
 San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles
Rivers and Mountains Conservancy
 State Water Resources Control
Board, Division of Water Quality
 State Water Resources Control
Board, Division of Water Rights
 California Department of
Transportation, District 7
 US Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9
 South Coast Air Quality Management
District
 Los Angeles County Sanitary District
 City of Long Beach Planning and
Building Permit
During the 45-day public review period, 20 comment letters were received. Comments on the Draft IS/ND and responses to these comments have been incorporated into this Final IS/ND.

The Final IS/ND includes clarifications, including:
 Revisions to Section 2 (Project Description) to clarify the type of new petroleum storage tanks.  Revisions to Section 2.9 (Project Overview) to clarify the types of petroleum products historically stored in the existing tanks and capacity of the largest tanks. The dimensions of the existing containment wall were corrected and additional detail on the structure was provided. Also, to clarify that the proposed Project would expand and realign World Oil’s storage capacity.  Revision to Section 2.9.1 (Project Objectives) to clarify that the proposed Project would expand and realign World Oil’s storage capacity.
 Revisions to Section 2.11 (Operations and Maintenance) to clarify the purpose of the new tanks, truck trips for refinery crude balancing are expected to remain the same as current operations , the newly

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 2
leased tanks would continue to ship and receive the same or similar fuel oils , the proposed Project activities do not impact oil refinery activities, and there are no changes to existing permit conditions.  Revisions to Section 4.3 (Air Quality) to clarify that the 10 percent increase over baseline in truck trips has been assumed as a worst-case assumption to account for atypical conditions. Operation emissions have been revised to reflect current South Coast Air Quality Management District emissions estimates completed as part of their review of World Oil’s new application for a permit to construct/operate for the two new proposed tanks submitted in February 2021. Special Condition AQ -1 has been added to clarify that the proposed Project would be required to utilize Tier 4 non -road construction equipment consistent with the POLB’s Clean Air Action Plan.
 Revisions to Section 4.6 (Energy) to clarify that long-term transportation fuel consumption from trucking would not increase, that a 10 percent increase over baseline in truck trips has been assumed as a worst-case, and new tank pumps and ancillary equipment have been considered in the analysis.  Revision to Section 4.7 (Geology and Soils) to clarify that the geotechnical investigation report ’s recommendations would be implemented in the final Project design.  Revisions to Section 4.8 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) to clarify that a 10 percent increase over baseline in truck trips has been assumed as well as emissions associated with the two new tank pumps.  Revisions to Section 4.9 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) to compare the nearest U.S. Ecology waste facility’s storage capacity with the proposed Project’s projected generated waste. Additional details of fire suppression and emergency contingency plans as well as a discussion of the Port’s assessment of the hazard footprint or vulnerability zone for the existing World Oil facility have been added.  Revisions to Section 4.10 (Hydrology and Water Quality) to include a description of future sea level rise in combination with a 100 -year storm event. The dimensions of the existing containment wall were corrected and additional detail on the structure was provided. Information from the report by the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory was added to further support the analysis of tsunami impacts related to the proposed Project.
 Revisions to Section 4.17 (Transportation) to clarify that a 10 percent increase over baseline in truck trips has been assumed as a worst -case and that the number of truck trips associated with crude oil balancing is not anticipated to increase during operations as a result of the proposed Project.  Revisions to Section 4.21 (Mandatory Findings of Significance) to clarify the definition of “current” projects and to compare the capacity of the nearest treatment, storage, and disposal facility with the proposed Project’s projected generated waste.
 Revisions to Section 5 (Application Summary Report) to include a description of the proposed new Climate Change Adaptation Element ( proposed Port Master Plan Update), discussion of Special Condition AQ -1 (Tier 4 non -road construction equipment) , and added new section on the Risk Management Plan. A lso, to clarify that the proposed Project would expand and realign World Oil’s storage capacity.
 Minor revisions to Section 6 (Report Preparation) under Project Management and Document Production.
 Minor editorial revisions to Section 7 (References) to formatting of references and addition of new references.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 3
 Addition of Chapter 8 (Response to Comments), which includes all written comments that the POLB received on the Draft IS/ND, together with responses to each comment.

The aforementioned changes have been incorporated directly into the Final IS/ND. Changes made to the Draft IS/ND text are indicated in strikeout (deletion) and underlined (addition) text.

No significant revisions to the s cope of the proposed Project have occurred since the Draft IS/ND was circulated for public review. The Final IS/ND has been revised due to minor editorial revisions and clarifications made to the Draft IS/ND, which do not change any of the impact findings in the Final IS/ND; therefore, no new adverse significant effects are introduced by these minor editorial revision s. As such, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, recirculation of the Draft IS/ND is not required.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 1-1

1. Introduction

1.1 Proposed Project Overview
Ribost Terminal LLC, DBA World Oil Terminals (World Oil) filed an Application for a Harbor Development Permit with the Port of Long Beach ( POLB) on August 14, 2019, to construct and operate t he World Oil Tank Installation Project ( proposed Project). World Oil Corporation primarily recycles oil- based waste including used motor oil, antifreeze, and oily waste water. The waste is then recycled into motor oil, marine diesel fuel, new anti freeze, and paving and roofing asphalt blending components. The asphalt blending components are used at the World Oil Refinery in South Gate, CA. As such, World Oil provides a service to the oil and gas industry as opposed to being a producer or refiner of crude oil or natural gas.

World Oil is proposing to construct and operate two new 25,000-barrel (bbl) petroleum storage tanks at the Ribost Terminal. The new storage tanks would be connected to existing utilities, such as electrical lines and petroleum pipelines Construction of these two new tanks would include new tank foundations and pipeline connections to existing facility infrastructure, such as the truck loading racks . The proposed Project is located at the POLB within the existing Ribost Terminal at 1405 Pier C Street, Long Beach, California. The Ribost Terminal is approximately 261,000 square feet (6 acres) and contains seven existing petroleum tanks. Of these seven tanks, two tanks have a capacity of approximately 43,000 bbl each, two have a capacity of approximately 67,000 bbl each, and three have a capacity of approximately 94,000 bbl each, for a total storage capacity of 502 ,000 bbl. While the proposed Project would provide additional storage capacity of petroleum products for refining and distribution, the increased crude oil storage would ultimately provide for more efficient terminal operations by making more existing tanks available for lease by third-party vendors with no increase in throughput, due to limitations associated with the physical geometry of the site, physical limitations of the existing pipelines and truck loading racks, and permitted throughput limits.

1.2 Environmental Analysis

1.2.1 CEQA Process
This Initial Study (IS) has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the amended State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) . The purpose of the IS is to inform the decision - makers, responsible agencies, and the public of the proposed Project, the existing environment that would be affected by the Project , the environmental effects that would occur if the Project is approved, and proposed mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce environmental effects to the extent feasible.

If the Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence that the Project , either as proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the I S, may cause a significant e ffect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall find that the proposed Project would not have a significant effect on the environment and shall prepare a Negative Declaration (or Mitigated Negative Declaration) for that project. If potentially significant impacts would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed Project, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared. Such determination can be made only if “there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency” that such impacts may occur (Section 21080, Public Resources Code).

The environmental documentation, which is ultimately approved and/or certified by the City Lead Agency, in accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to pro vide an

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 1-2
environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions upon the Project. The resulting documentation is not, however, a policy document and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits and other discretionary approvals would be required.

1.2.2 C EQA Lead Agency
The City of Long Beach, acting by and through its Harbor Department, the POLB, is the lead agency for review of the proposed Project under CEQA.

1.2.3 Initial Study
The IS presents an analysis of potential effects of the proposed Project on the environment. The IS is based on information from the Application filed August 14, 2019 and associated submittals, site visits, POLB data requests, and additional research.

Construction activities and project operation could have direct and indirect impacts on the environment.

The following environmental parameters are addressed based on the potential effects of the p roposed Project and potential growth -inducing or cumulative effects of the Project in combination with ot her projects:
 Aesthetics
 Agricultural & Forestry Resources
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources
 Energy
 Geology/Soils
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hazards & Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology/Water Quality
 Land Use/Planning
 Mineral Resources
 Noise
 Population/Housing
 Public Services
 Recreation
 Transportation
 Tribal Cultural Resources
 Utilities/Service Systems
 Wildfire
 Mandatory Findings of Significance
The IS has been organized into the following sections:
 Section 1: Introduction. Provides an introduction and overview describing the proposed Project and the CEQA process and identifies key areas of environmental concern to be analyzed.  Section 2: Project Description. Presents the Project objectives and provides an in-depth description of the proposed Project, including construction details and methods.  Section 3: Environmental Determination. Presents the results of the analysis completed in Section 4.  Section 4 : Environmental Analysis. Provides an analysis of the proposed Project’s potential environmental impacts.
 Section 5: Application Summary Report. Provides an assessment of the Project’s conformance with the stated policies of the Port Master Plan (PMP) and the California Coastal Act (CCA).  Section 6: Report Preparation. Lists the preparers of the IS.  Section 7: References. Lists the sources of information used to prepare the IS.  Section 8: Responses to Comments. Includes all comment letters received and responses to comments.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 2-1

2. Project Description
Ribost Terminal LLC, DBA World Oil Terminals (World Oil or applicant) proposes to construct the World Oil Tank Installation Project (proposed Project), which would include the construction and operation of two new 25,000-barrel (bbl) internal floating roof petroleum storage tanks within the existing World Oil Terminal at the Port of Long Beach (POLB or Port), in Long Beach, California. Construction of these two new tanks would include new tank foundations and pipeline connections to existing facility infrastructure, such as the truck loading racks . The proposed Project would provide additional storage capacity to increase the efficiency of terminal operations with no increase in throughput, due to limitations associated with the physical geometry of the site, physical limitations of the existing pipelines and truck loading racks, and permitted throughput limits . The new tanks would supplant the terminal’s existing tanks that provide crude oil storage to the World Oil Refinery in South Gate through the truck loading racks. The existing tanks would then be removed from dedicated refinery service and become available for lease to third-party vendors.

2.1 Project Title
World Oil Tank Installation Project

2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address
Port of Long Beach
415 W. Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, California 90802

2.3 Lead Agency Contact Person and Phone Number
Jennifer Blanchard
Environmental Specialist Associate
(562) 283-71077100

2.4 Project Location
The proposed Project is located in the southern portion of the County of Los Angeles in the Northeast Harbor Planning District (District 2) of Long Beach Harbor (POLB ) ( POLB, 1990). The proposed Project would be located within the existing World Oil Terminal at 1405 Pier C Street in Long Beach, California , just west of the Long Beach Freeway (I -710) and the Los Angeles River . The two new tanks would be installed in the generally vacant northwest corner of the existing petroleum bulk station and terminal .

Figure 2-1 depicts a map of the Project site within the regional context of the vicinity. Figure 2-2 shows the Project site plan with the proposed tank locations, access routes, and staging area.

2.5 Project Applicant’s Name and Address
Ribost Terminal, LLC, DBA World Oil Terminals (World Oil) John Dougherty, Terminal Manager
1405 W. Pier C Street Berth C73
Long Beach, CA 90813

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 2-2

2.6 General Plan Designation
The City of Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element, adopted in 2019, designates the POLB as a Regional-Serving Facility “PlaceType,” which is defined as a flexible zoning type including “facilities, businesses and operations that not only serve the City of Long Beach, but also the region and parts of the nation.” According to Table LU-6: PlaceTypes and Zoning Districts Consistency Matrix in the City of Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element, this PlaceType is consistent with Light, Medium, General, and Port- related Industrial Zoning Districts (City of Long Beach, 2019).

2.7 Zoning
The 1990 Port Master Plan designates the Project location as part of District 2: Northeast Harbor Planning District (POLB, 1990).

2.8 S urrounding Land Uses and Setting
The Port is the second-largest container port in the U.S. and consists of industrial and heavy commercial cargo shipping and trucking activity. The overall landscape is highly developed, with surrounding land uses similar to the proposed Project. The Project area is bounded by the Long Beach Harbor Channel 2 and Pier B to the north, the Matson Auto and Oversized Cargo Yard and the Long Beach Freeway (I-710) to the east, Inner Harbor Channel to the south, and SSA/Matson Container Yard to the immediate west.

Figure 2-1. Project Vicinity
Figure 2-1. Project Vicinity

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 2-3

2.9 Project Overview
The World Oil Terminal is approximately
261,000 square feet ( 6 acres) and contains
seven existing petroleum tanks (see Figure 2-
3). Of these seven tanks, two tanks have a
capacity of approximately 43,000 bbl each,
two have a capacity of approximately 67,000
bbl each, and three have a capacity of
approximately 94,000 bbl each, for a total
storage capacity of 502,000 bbl . Three tanks
contain crude oil and serve the World Oil
Refinery in South Gate through the terminal
truck loading racks . The remaining four tanks
are leased to Marathon Petroleum and
Glencore and store fuel oil received and
shipped via pipeline. The leased tanks have
historically stored different grades of marine fuels for lessees, such as marine diesel oil, bunker fuel oil, and low sulfur fuel oil. The existing tanks are surrounded by a containment wall that varies between Figure 2-3. Existing Tanks
Figure 2-2. Project Site Plan
World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021  2‐4
approximately 12.5 to 13 feet in height. The wall thickness tapers from approximately 1.5 feet wide at the base to 1 foot wide at the top. The wall includes a 12‐to 12.5‐foot‐wide footing that is buried to a depth that runs from 1.5 feet below grade at the outer edges of the wall to a depth of approximately 3 feet towards the center of the facility. The wall and its footing make a large “L” shape that is continuous around the site which prevents the wall from falling over in the event of a spill.by an approximately 8‐foot wide, 6‐foot deep containment wall with 50‐foot deep foundations. The containment wall was designed to hold the largest tanks capacity (90,000 barrels) plus a 100‐year storm event. The new tanks would be located within the containment wall.

The majority of the 6‐acre site is unpaved and covered with sand and gravel, whereas 0.83 acre is paved with concrete. The unpaved gravel surface lies atop riprap and fill. The paved surfaces cover the western portion of the terminal and provide access for trucks to en ter  the site, load, and exit from the same access point (one‐way in, one‐way out) (see  red arrows in Figure 2‐2).  Each  transport truck  has a capacity of approximately 4,000 gallons. The terminal has a maximum truck capacity of five trucks due to the limited available area for queuing and to maintain fire lane a ccess. The loading area has a berm that in the event of an accidental spill would contain the equivalent of one truckload of crude oil. A drainage device in the center  of  the  berm  collects  the  oil  into  a  processing  area  and  prevents  it  from  per meating   soil  or contaminating seawater.

World  Oil  proposes  to  construct  the  proposed  Project,  which  would  include  the  construction  and operation of two new 25,000 bbl internal floating roof petroleum storage tanks at the existing World Oil Terminal located at 1405 Pier C Street in Long Beach, California. The new tanks would store crude oil and be installed in the generally vacant northwest corner of the existing petroleum bulk station and terminal.

Construction of the new tanks would include new tank foundations, two pumps, and connections to the existing pipeli
nes leading to the existing truck loading racks. Each tank would be approximately 60 feet in diameter with a height of 56 feet and a maximum fluid height of 50 feet. A 25‐horsepower pump would be installed for each tank to pump crude oil from existing lines to and from the new tanks. Approximately 40 linear feet (LF) of piping would be installed to connect the tanks to existing pi pe infrastructure. A short electrical conduit connection would be required between the new tanks and the existing subpanel located just outside the containment wall to the north. No other new overhead electrical lines or pipelines would be needed. The proposed Project would expand realign World Oil’s storage capacity ne eds,  which would improve the efficiency of terminal operations, by where the two new smaller tanks would provide the adequate  capacity  for  World  Oil  by  replacing  two  larger  currently  underutilized  storage  tanks  that transport crude to the World Oil refinery. This would allowing World Oil to lease the larger existing tanks to third‐party vendors. These third‐party vendors would import/export via existing pipelines and truck loading racks for off‐site storage, as is currently done for several of the existing tanks at the facility.

2.9.1  Project Objectives
The objectives of the proposed Project are:
 To increase efficiency of terminal operations;
 To expand crude oiland realign storage capacity needs; and  To make more existing tanks available for lease by third‐party vendors.

2.10  Project Construction
Prior to tank installation, the Project site would be prepared according to the recommendations provided in the Albus‐Keefe & Associates geotechnical update reports from 2018 (Albus‐Keefe & Associates, Inc.,

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 2-5
2018). Figure 2-4 shows the existing area where the tanks would be installed. All earthwork and grading would be performed in compliance with applicable requirements of California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) and specifications of POLB’s Grading Codes.

The site would be prepared by initial ly
clearing debris , such as concrete and
abandoned underground components. For
example, a n existing out-of -service
oil/water concrete separator sump at the
Project site would be demolished to
accommodate the new tanks (see Figure 2-
5). During ground preparation, the upper
approximately four feet of earth material
would be excavated and removed to
accommodate locally imported sandy
engineered fill that would serve as a stable
base for the new tanks. Existing materials
may also be mixed with the sandy
engineered fill to reduce the need to
dispose of excess soil. After initial removal of earth material, approximately six inches in depth of debris would be removed from the exposed grade. The exposed grade would be brought to at least 110 percent of the optimum moisture content, and then compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard.

The locally imported sandy engineered fill would consist of f ine particles and placed in loose lifts (i.e., layers to be compacted with soil fill) no greater than approximately eight inches in thickness. Each lift would either be watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve at least 100 percent of the optimum moisture content and then compacted in place to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Subsequent lifts would not be placed until the geotechnical consultant has tested the preceding lift. Lifts would be maintained relatively level and would not exceed a gradient of 20:1 (horizontal-to-vertical).

Because the site is underlain by compressible earth materials that are susceptible to liquefaction, implementation of a ground improvement system may reduce the effects of static and seismic settlements. Construction of the ground improvement system would consist of vibratory stone column Geopiers, also known as vibro piers, or equivalent rammed aggregate piers (RAPs). The vibro pier process involves the construction of dense aggregate columns (i.e., stone columns) with a down -hole vibrator (or equivalent, such as a hydraulic break hammer or mounted impact hammer (hoe ram) suspended from a crane or specially built rig .

Vibro replacement would increase the soil’s ability to support heavy loads and resist shear force, decrease settlement, and reduce liquefaction. Typical vibro pier construction would begin with pre-drilling the pier location to create a full-depth hole with a diameter that is equal to the final pier design diameter. Stone is then introduced to the hole and compacted in layers by repetitive ramming with a powerful, specially designed vibrator or equivalent equipment. Vibro replacement stone columns may be constructed wi th the bottom feed process in soils in which the Figure 2-4. Project Site – View Looking West
Figure 2-5. Oil/Water Concrete
Separator Sump (to be demolished)

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 2-6
pre-drilled hole will not stay open. The bottom -feed process feeds stone to the vibrator tip through an attached feed pipe. Pre-drilling of dense soil layers at the column location may be required for the vibrator to penetrate to the design depth. This method of construction creates a stone column that reinforces the treatment zone and densifies surrounding granular soils. The vibro replacement process is repeated in lifts until a dense stone column is constructed to the ground surface.

The backfilled areas around the tank foundations would be graded to allow for proper drainage. Because the Project site is completely unpaved and covered in gravel, water runoff can infiltrate the soil. No excess water would be directed toward or allowed to pool against structures such as walls, foundations, or flatwork.

The two tank foundations would be installed on top of a ring-wall-type foundation. Approximately 40 LF of above-ground pipes per tank would be field-fitted to connect the tanks to existing lines, which connect to the truck loading racks. In the event that pipes must go beneath the ramp just to the south of the new tanks, the pipes would be coated and wrapped. A short electrical connection would be provided between the new tanks and the existing subpanel located just outside the containment wall to the north. No other new overhead electrical lines or pipelines would be needed.

The two ta nks would undergo a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permitted hydrotest. The hydrotest, or hydrostatic test, would check for leaks and structural integrity. Approximately 50,000 bbl of water sourced from the Long Beach Water Departm ent would be used for the hydrotest.

Once conducted, the hydrotest discharge would be tested for any contaminants and then dechlorinated.

The water test results would be sent to POLB as proof of meeting NPDES permit requirements prior to discharge into the harbor.

The tank exteriors would be shop-blasted and painted off-site with primer, and then painted on-site with two coats of paint. The first coat would have a thickness of approximately 4 to 6 mils (one-thousandth of an inch), and the second coat would have a thickness of approximately 2 to 4 mils. The tank interiors would be coated with an approximately 16 to 22-mil coat of paint, which would cover the tank floors and up the sidewalls approximately 48 inches.

After completion of tank construction, all construction debris such as trash, scrap metal, abrasive blasting material, paint, pallets, concrete, and general construction scrap would be disposed of or recycled according to the California Green Building Standards Code and the City of Long Beach Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Program (City of Long Beach, 2007).

Schedule. The proposed tanks would be constructed in two phases, as shown in Table 2 -1, starting in JanuarySeptember 2021 and lasting for approximately 10 months. Construction activities would occur Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (one 10-hour shift/day).

Table 2-1. Construction Schedule and Personnel
Project
Alternative/Construc
tion Phase
Work Activity
(subphase) Start Date End Date
No.

Workdays Shifts1
Workers Per
Day
Phase 1 Excavation/Foundation 1/2/2021
9/6/2021
5/8/2021
1/14/2022
91 1/10 8
Phase 2 Tank Erection/Painting 4/25/2021
1/3/2022
10/27/2021
7/8/2022
134 1/10 8
1Five-day work weeks

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 2-7
Equipment. The proposed Project would require the use of both on-road and off -road trucks and equipment to transport construction materials and debris. Table 2-2 shows the breakdown of equipment to be used during construction activities.

Table 2-2. Construction Equipment
Project Activity
Equipment
Type
Estimated
Number
Schedule
(# of Days Equipment Operates )
Excavation Bobcat 2 43
Crane 1 43
Skip Loader 1 43
Flat Bed Truck 1 1
Dump Truck 1 43
Excavator 1 43
Foundation Pile Driver 1 55
Crane 1 55
Bobcat 1 55
Concrete 1 40
Dump Truck 1 4
Flat Bed Truck 2 4
Tank Erection Crane 2 60
Manlift 1 120
Flat Bed Truck 1 24
Flat Bed Truck 2 2
Air Compressor 2 120
Generator 1 120
Source: World Oil Terminals, 2019.

Staging Area. Workers would access the
Project site from Pier C Street at the existing
entrance to the World Oil Terminal property.

The entrance is gated to provide security
during Project construction and operations.

During the day shift, the operator, supervisor,
and terminal manager are present on-site.

During the night shift, one operator is present
on-site. The unpaved area north of the
control building would serve as an
approximately 6,940-square-foot (770
square-yards) staging area for construction
vehicles (see Figure 2-6).

Figure 2-6. Staging Area
Unpaved gravel lot would
serve as the staging area
Ramp would provide
construction vehicle
access to project site

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 2-8

2.11 Operations and Maintenance
Overall terminal operations include shipping and receiving of crude oil and fuel oils through pipeline and/or truck loading rack s to and from onsite tanks, some of which are leased to third- party vendors.

These operations would remain simi lar once the proposed Project is implemented. Once the two petroleum tanks are installed, anticipated operations would involve storage of crude oil in the new tanks and leasing of the existing tanks to third -party vendors. The new tanks would be permitted to store a variety of petroleum products including crude oil and fuel oil, allowing operational flexibility to shift which tanks are leased in the future. Although n
Normal operation of the leased tanks would involve pipeline transfers , andsuch that there would be no increase in required site staffing levels or truck trips. However , as a worst -case assumption for the purposes of impact analysis , truck trips are estimated to increase 10 percent during proposed Project operations, which may occur during atypical operations such as w hen a pipeline is being serviced. to accommodate vendors not connected to the pipeline. Current operations for tanks allocated to the World Oil Refinery include the transport of crude oil to the tanks by pipeline and daily truck trips to and from the terminal to the offsite World Oil Refinery located in South Gate, California. These operations would remain similar once the proposed Project is implemented. Periodically, crude oil may be returned to the tanks by daily truck trips for refinery crude balancing. T ruck trips anticipated for refinery crude balancing are expected to remain the same as current opera tions (approximately one truck per month) . Table 2 -3 displays the existing monthly and daily average loading rack truck count and barrels transported.

Table 2-3. Existing Loading Rack Truck Traffic
2017-2019 Average Truck Count Barrels
Monthly Daily Monthly Daily
Minimum 474 15 74,537 2,404
Maximum 847 28 133,529 4,315
Overall Average 702 23 110,320 3,626
As described in Section 2.9, the existing leased tanks have historically stored different grades of marine fuels for lessees, such as marine diesel oil, bunker fuel oil, and low sulfur fuel oil. The newly leased tanks would continue to primarily ship and receive the same or similar fuel oils through either the two inbound and outbound Marathon Petroleum pipelines serving the Marathon Petroleum Carson Refinery and/or Marathon Petroleum pipeline and terminal assets; or the Glencore bidirectional pipeline serving the Glencore Long Beach Marine Terminal and Glencore Carson Marine Terminal. A third pipeline, RT-1, is owned and operated by World Oil and is a receive -only pipeline that would deliver crude oil to the new tanks. Activities at refineries such as the Marathon Petroleum Carson Refinery and at terminals such as Glencore Long Beach Marine Terminal are separate from activities at the World Oil Terminal. Refinery processing capabilities are limited by factors such as equipment design capacity, permit conditions, firing rates for combustion sources, and maintenance schedules of the various operating units within the refineries. Therefore, refinery processes are not influenced by the proposed Project’s storage capacity.

The proposed Project would not debottleneck the facility to allow for greater actual crude oil throughput beyond the permitted limits through the pipelines, tanks, or loading racks. Each of the existing crude tanks at the World Oil Terminal has an air quality permit that limits throughput, vapor pressure of materials, and the types of materials (based on volatilities, Reid Vapor Pressure or RVP) that are permitted to be

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 2-9
stored. No changes to existing permit conditions have been requested or are needed to implement the proposed Project; the existing tanks would continue to operate as currently permitted. Additionally, t he World Oil Terminal is limited to loading up to 10,000 bbl/day of crude oil into trucks; this limit does not change with implementation of the proposed Project.

After proposed Project implementation, the newly leased tanks may also ship product through the truck loading racks, similar to how shipping occurs for the existing tanks . As a worst-case scenario, such as an atypical condition involving a pipe being serviced, and would result in a 10 percent increase in operational truck traffic has been assumedto accommodate vendors not connected to the pipeline. Table 2-4 displays the projected future monthly and daily average loading rack truck count and barrels transported including this 10 percent increase.

Word Oil’s e xisting emergency contingency plans include the Emergency Response Action Plan, Facility Response Plan, Illness and Injury Prevention Plan, and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan.

These existing plans would be updated to reflect the additional tanks and continue to be implemented.

World O il would continue to conduct annual trainings and quarterly/annual emergency drills, have evacuation plans, and shutdown procedures.

Maintenance activities for the new tanks would be the same as those for the existing tanks, including cleaning sludge from tank bottoms , dewatering, routine visual inspections, and standard quarterly inspections in compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Permit. World Oil would adopt all existing maintenance procedures for the proposed Project. Pumps and piping would be inspected, repaired, replaced, or upgraded as needed. Currently, approximately 300 gallons of water per tank per day are dewatered, as estimated from current wastewater meter discharge flow meter readings on existing tanks. T herefore, it is anticipated that a smaller amount would be dewatered from the two proposed smaller 25,000-bbl tanks per day . The dewatered wastewater would be piped into the existing three 10,000- gallon wastewater treatment storage tanks and then discharged to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District for treatment in compliance with the facility’s discharge permit, as is currently done for the existing tanks . Approximately every 10 years, the tanks would be cleaned of sludge, repaired, and/ or hydrotested. Sludge tank bottom quantities are estimated to be approximately 1,500 bbl every ten years and are disposed of at permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF) such as a U.S. Ecology waste facility. TSDFs may be in any number of locations in the U.S. depending on the type of treatment required. This waste is regulated by the State of California (non - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste). Other risk management procedures include the American Petroleum Institute 653 Standard inspection, daily operator inspections, and annual cathodic protection surveys.

Tank life is estimated to be greater than 50 years. Upon decommissioning, tank sludge, contractor waste, and scrap steel for recycling would be generated.

Table 2-4. Proposed New Loading Rack Truck Traffic
Average Truck Count Barrels
Monthly Daily Monthly Daily
Minimum 521 17 81,991 2,645
Maximum 932 31 146,882 4,746
Overall Average 772 26 121,351 3,989

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 2-10

2.12 Other Permits and Approvals
The POLB is the lead agency for CEQA review of this Project. The POLB has exclusive authority to approve or deny World Oil’s application; however, vari ous permits from other agencies may also need to be obtained by the applicant for the proposed Project. If the POLB issues a Harbor Development Permit , it would provide overall project approval and certify compliance of the Project with CEQA. In addition to the Harbor Development Permit , Table 2-5 summarizes the permits from other federal, State, and local agencies that may be needed for the Project.

Table 2-5. Permits that May Be Required for the Proposed Project Agency Jurisdiction Requirements
Federal / State Agencies
Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 Hazardous Waste Facility has EPA ID, storage <90 days California Department of Toxic Substances
Control
Hazardous Waste Facility has EPA ID, storage <90 days
Local / Regional Agencies
South Coast Air Quality Management District Air quality Limit air emissions from new tanks Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control
Board
Tank hydrotest water Discharge to Long Beach Harbor
Los Angeles County Sanitary District Wastewater treatment Wastewater discharge limits City of Long Beach Planning and Building
Permit
Construction Tank construction building codes

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report September 2021 3-1

3. Environmental Determination

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” and requiring implementation of mitigation as indi- cated by the checklist on the following pages.

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

3.2 Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

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

I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” o r “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation mea- sures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that alth ough the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARA - TION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION , including revisions or mit igation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Matthew Arms, Director of Environmental Planning Date
Port of Long Beach
10/5/2021

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-1

4. Environmental Setting and Environmental Impacts

4.1 Aesthetics

AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? NO IMPACT. The Project site is not located within an officially designated scenic vista. The Port Master Plan identifies three sensitive views within the POLB: (1) predominant structures visible to the east fro m downtown Long Beach and along the ocean bluffs, (2) ground level views along the boundary of Queensway Bay, and (3) ground level views along Harbor Scenic Drive from southbound lanes south of Anaheim Street (POLB, 1990). Additionally, the General Plan Mobility Element designates the segment of Ocean Boulevard from Nimitz Road on the west to State Route 1 (SR-1) on the east as a City -designated scenic route (City of Long Beach, 2013).

Downtown Long Beach and its coastal areas are located to the east of th e Project site across the Los Angeles River and the Long Beach Freeway ( I-710). Given the distance and visual obstructions from existing buildings and infrastructure, the Project site is not visible from these sensitive viewpoints.

The Project site is also not adjacent to Queensway Bay and would not obstruct ground-level views of this scenic resource. Queensway Bay is approximately 1.6 miles southeast of the Project site, south of the Seaside Freeway/Ocean Boulevard, the Queensway Bridge, and many other intervening structures, including elevated roadways, gantry cranes, and oil refineries. The existing infrastructure inhibits views to or from the Project site and Queensway Bay. Therefore, the proposed Project would not impact ground- level views near Queensway Bay.

The segment of Harbor Scenic Drive (I- 710), south of Anaheim Street, is approximately 0.21 mile east of the Project site. The Project site is visible from a portion of I -710, but the existing taller storage tanks to the south and east of the new tanks would obstruct views of the new smaller tanks. Overall, the Project site is in a highly industrialized area with features typical of marine container terminals, including storage tanks, cranes, and other container-moving equipment, trucks, elevated roadways, and other port-related

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-2
facilities. The overall viewshed from I -710 is ch aracterized by the highly industrialized and developed environment of the Port. Similarly, views of the Project site from Ocean Boulevard are primarily obscured by distance as well as intervening structures. The addition of the new tanks would not detract from t he overall viewshed from Harbor Scenic Drive and Ocean Boulevard.

Project construction activities would temporarily alter the visual character of the site, but construction equipment such as dump trucks, cranes, and excavators would generally be consistent with the existing industrial and port-related activities and facilities in the Project area. Once completed, the two new tanks would blend in with the existing seven tanks on -site and would not substantially impact the scenic character of the area. The new tanks would be smaller than the existing tanks and would not be highly visible from public viewsheds. The Project would not result in any new prominent features that may impact the scenic viewshed along Harbor Scenic Drive or Ocean Boulevard, and t he Project site would continue to be consistent with the industrial nature of the viewshed. The two new approximately 56-foot tall tanks would be smaller than the existing tanks, which range from 80 to 118 feet tall. Similar to existing structures on-site, the proposed tanks would be consistent with the POLB’s highly industrialized visual character. Views of the Project site would be generally the same as existing conditions. The proposed Project would not obstruct views of any specific scenic resources, either natural or man-made, and would blend in with the surrounding industrial character. Due to other intervening str uctures such as raised roadways, cranes, and other storage structures, views of the Project site would be intermittently obstructed from the roadways. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in no impact on scenic vistas.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? N
O IMPACT. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Scenic Highway Mapping System, there are no designated State scenic highways within the POLB or the City of Long Beach. The closest State-designated scenic highway is SR-91 beginning at SR-55 east of the Anaheim city limit, which is more than 20 miles to the northeast of the Project site (Caltrans, 2019). The City of Long Beach General Plan Mobility Element designates the segment of Ocean Boulevard from Nimitz Road on the west to SR-1 on the east as a City -designated scenic route (City of Long Beach, 2013) . The closest eligible State scenic highway is the segment of SR-1, located approximately five miles to the east of the Project site that follows the coastline from Orange County into Los Angeles County and terminat es at SR -22 in the City of Long Beach (Caltrans, 2019). The Project site is not visible from either of these State scenic highways due to distance and obstructions from existing structures and topography; therefore, the proposed Project would not impact any scenic resources within a State scenic highway.

The General Plan Mobility Element Map 12, Context-Sensitive Street Classification System, identifies scenic routes within the City of Long Beach ( City of Long Beach, 2013). The closest City-designated scenic route to the Project site is Ocean Boulevard from Nimitz Road (western City limit) to SR -1 (eastern City limit), which is located approximately 0.55 mile south of the Project site. As discussed in Section 4.1(a), views of the Project site from Ocean Boulevard are mainly obstructed and include features typical of marine container terminals and other industrial and port-related facilities.

Furthermore, there are no scenic resources at the Project site such as trees, rock outcropping, historic buildings, or other aesthetic features, and therefore, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not damage scenic resources. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-3
c. In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The Project site’s visual character and surroundings are dominated by highly industrial features, resulting in low visual quality. Main components of the site consist of the tank storage area, truck access route, truck loading rack s, and office building. The tank storage area occupies the majority of the Project site area and is unpaved. Smaller wastewater tanks, piping, meters, walkways, and ladders are located within this area. The truck access route begins at the entrance from Pier C Street, runs north to the turnaround, circles back to the truck loading rack s, and terminates at the entrance. On-site structures do not have any defining architectural features.

The proposed Project would construct and install two additional smaller tanks that measure approximately 56 feet tall and 60 feet in diameter. These tanks would be obstructed by the existing tanks, which range from 80 to 118 feet tall . The new tanks would be connected with approximately 40 linear feet of new piping to existing pipe infrastructure. The storage tanks would be visually similar to the existing tanks and have similar uses (i.e., storage of crude oil). Construction activities would temporarily alter the visual character of the Project area through the presence and use of large equipment such as a crane, skip loader, dump truck, excavator, and pile driver. However, these activities would generally blend in with the existing industrial and port-related facilities in the area and would be temporary, lasting approximately 10 months. Upon completion, the terminal would be visually similar to existing conditions with the exception of two new, smaller storage tanks.

The surroundings of the Project site are defined by industrial features consistent with a maritime container terminal. Structures vary in height, form, color, and orientation to roadways. The new storage tanks would be consistent with the visual character of the Project site, as they would be installed in an area surrounded by seven existing on-site storage tanks . Furthermore, the proposed Project would also be visually consistent with the surrounding uses because other large storage tanks are located on other properties opposite the Project site. The Project would not conflict with the site’s overall industrial scenic nature.

The terminal would have similar operational activities with additiona l storage capacity to lease to third - party vendors. The site would continue to be compatible with neighboring port -related industrial uses.

The addition of two new crude oil storage tanks would not result in the visual degradation of the Project area’s industrial character. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
L
ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The Project site and surroundings are predominantly characterized by industrial uses that currently use nighttime lighting. Existing lighting on -site consist of tall pole lights scattered around the site and smaller lights at the truck loading racks that provide lighting for nighttime operations. In addition, there is a large amount of nighttime lighting associated with the highly industrialized POLB, which has activities occurring 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The surrounding urbanized sites adjacent to the terminal and along Pier C Street all contain various sources of light and glare. Tall pole lights exist throughout the vicinity, which provide nighttime illumination. The main source of daytime glare comes from the Matson Auto and Oversized Cargo Yard, due to sunlight reflecting off of

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-4
densely parked vehicles. The proposed Project would not exacerbate nighttime or daytime glare because it does not propose any nighttime illumination or materials that cause daytime glare.

According to the City of Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 8.80.202, Construction Activity – Noise Regulation, construction activities are limited to occur only between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Federal holidays, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; no construction activities shall occur on Sundays. Construction of the proposed Project would occur between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. from Monday through Friday. Lighting and glare impacts related to construction activities would be less than significant because construction would occur within the permitted time and would stop earlier than 7:00 p.m., minimizing the need for nighttime lighting.

No new lighting is proposed as part of the Project. Compliance with LBMC Section 8.80.202 would ensure light and glare impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project are minimized to less - than-significant levels.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-5

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are signif- icant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) pre- pared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timber- land, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pre- pared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Pro- gram of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code §12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code §4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Govern- ment Code §51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as Shown on the Maps Prepared Pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to Non-agricultural use? NO IMPACT. The Project is located in a highly developed area of the POLB with existing petroleum storage and transport operations occurring at the site. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the Project site is not within any area designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (DOC, 2016). The developed, urban character of the surrounding area suggest that the appropriate Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program mapping designation would be Urban and Built-Up Land. Thus, the proposed Project would have no impact on Farmland.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-6
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? NO IMPACT. The Project site and its surrounding areas a re located with District 2 and zoned “MP – Port Manufacturing” (POLB, 1990). Permitted uses within District 2 and MP zones include primary port facilities, port-related uses, hazardous cargo facilities, ancillary port facilities, oil production, and navigation. No agricultural use occurs within the Project site and surrounding areas. As such, the Project site is not a part of a Williamson Act contract. Thus, no impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timber land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
N
O IMPACT. As discussed in Section 4.2(b), the Project site is not located within lands zoned for forest land or timberland. As such, the proposed Project would not cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? NO IMPACT. As discussed in Section 4.2(b), the Project site is not located within lands zoned for forest land.

The proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or convert forest land to non-forest use.

No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? N
O IMPACT. As discussed in Sections 4.2(a) through 4.2(d), the Project site is located in an urbanize d area with no land zoned for agricultural or forest uses . The Project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use, and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-7

4.3 Air Quality

AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Discussion
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) implements, and periodically updates, the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin, which is comprised of portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, and Orange County. The AQMP uses projections of population growth and trends in energy and transportation demand to predict future emissions and determine control strategies to eventually achieve attainment with the ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. The ambient air quality standards are set at levels to adequately protect the health of the public, and AQMP control strategies are designed to achieve the requisite reductions in emissions of ozone precursors, such as organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, and reductions in particulate matter . The control strategies are then either codified into the SCAQMD’s rules and regulations, or otherwise set forth as formal recommendations to other agencies, such as those contained in the SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines.

The SCAQMD rules and regulations include requirements for stationary equipment, certain materials used (such as paints/coatings), and for fugitive dust and nuisance control. These regulations contain both requirements and exemptions for certain types of equipment that may be used during implementation of the proposed Project. Portable equipment with small internal combustion engines (under 50 horsepower) that may be used during construction would be exempt from permitting through SCAQMD Rule 219.

Compliance with the applicable SCAQMD rules, for projects that otherwise are within the growth projections for the air basin, indicates a project would not conflict with the applicable air quality plan.

L
ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Project construction would be required to comply with the applicable air quality regulations and all applicable Clean Air Action Plan ( CAAP) construction Best Management Practices (BMPs). Compliance with these regulations and CAAP BMPs ensures construction practices and emissions would conform with the AQMP.

The proposed Project includes the installation of two new floating roof crude oil storage tanks but does not increase the permitted crude oil throughput for the crude oil loading racks or tanker truck transportation requirements for crude oil. The tanks are required to obtain SCAQMD permits and comply with all SCAQMD regulations. The World Oil facility is not a Major Source as defined by the Clean Air Act

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-8
and SCAQMD permitting requirements; therefore, the facility does not require a federal Title V air quality permit.

The proposed project is also expected to cause aA 10 percent increase over baseline in truck trips has been assumed as a worst -case assumption for the purposes of impact analysis. the use of the loadin g racks over baseline to deliver fuel oil products from the two existing crude oil tanks that would be repurposed to leased fuel oil storage after the new crude oil tanks are installed and operating. This increase is equal to a maximum of three additional truck loading events per day. This increase in truckingtTrucks associated with operation of the proposed Project would be required to ing would be performed in compliance complyiance with all state and local regulations, the truck loading would be performed in compliance withincluding the existing SCAQMD permits for the existing truck loading rack permits, and it would be performed with trucks meeting the Ports Clean Trucks Program requirements .

Therefore, this is the nominal increase in trucks transporting fuel oil trucking would not conflict with the AQMP.

The proposed Project’s operation would increase the number of petroleum storage tanks at the site and increase the total fugitive volatile organic compound ( VOC) emissions from the tanks. This emissions increase has been address ed in the permit application submitted by World Oil to the SCAQMD (Yorke, 2021).two SCAQMD permits to construct granted for the two tanks (SCAQMD, 2020a; SCAQMD, 2020b).

The SCAQMD reviewed the design and operation specifications for the new tanks, along with the proposed emissions offset plan, to ensure that the tanks would comply with all SCAQMD rules and regulations and SCAQMD approved permits to construct for the two tanks . This includes the requirement that the new tanks have Best Available Control Technology (BACT), which for thesethe proposed newse tanks are a n internal floating roof tank s with a mechanic shoe seal.and that In addition, the proposed Project would be required by the SCAQMD to offset the estimated new tanks VOC emissions, including the fugitive emissions associated with the new piping components (pumps, valves, etc.) , at a ratio of 1.2 to 1 using approved emissions reduction credits (SCAQMD, 2021b, 2021c). The SCAQMD New Source Review (NSR) permitting program is designed to create net stationary source emissions reductions for non -attainment air pollutants, such as VOC.

The proposed Project would not cause substantial directly or indirectly substantial growth within the air basin. Therefore, the proposed Project’s operation would not conflict with the AQMP.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard?
Discussion
SCAQMD has recommended daily emissions significance thresholds for construction and operation emissions that address the air basin’s federal and state non-attainment pollutants. The proposed Project’s construction and operation emissions are compared to these thresholds for the determination of significance herein.

Construction
The proposed Project’s construction emissions have been estimated using the SCAQMD -approved California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2). The construction equipment, vehicle

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-9
trip, and tank coating assumptions have been determined through coordination with the Project applicant and are provided in Appendix A. The emissions estimate does not include any off -road equipment or on- road vehicle engine mitigation; however, t he emissions estimate does include control measures for fugitive dust and VOC in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). The assumed fugitive dust control measure is watering of working areas and excavated materials. The VOC emissions control measure requires the use of low-VOC content compliant coatings for the interior and exterior of the tanks.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Table 4.3-1 provides the maximum daily emissions estimated for Project construction. The worst-case emissions for all criteria pollutants, except VOC , for the pr oposed Project would occur during an overlap of the excavation/foundation preparation construction phase and the tank erection construction phase. The VOC emissions peak occurs during an overlap of tank coating and tank erection, where tank coating for the first tank starts before the tank erection phase for the second tank is complete. The specific emissions assumptions (construction phase schedule, off-road equipment, on-road vehicle trips, paint type and use quantities ) for each of the Project ’s construction phases are provided in Appendix A.

Table 4.3-1. Summary of Unmitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emission Estimates (Pounds Per Day)
VOC CO NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5
On-road 0.1 1.7 1.9 0.01 0.1 0.0
Off-road 1.1 21.5 30.3 0.05 1.3 1.2
Architectural Coatings 35.3 -- -- -- -- --
Fugitive Dust -- -- -- -- 0.5 0.1
Total Emissions 36.5 23.2 32.3 0.06 1.8 1.3
Significance Threshold 75 550 100 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix A; SCAQMD, 2019a.

Acronyms: VOC – volatile organic compounds, CO – carbon monoxide, NOx – nitrogen oxides, SOx – sulfur oxides, PM10 – particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter, PM 2.5 – particulate matter 2.5 micros or less in diameter.

The proposed project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust ) for the watering of unpaved areas and hauled bulk materials to reduce dust from earthmoving and transport operations. In addition, Low VOC paints would be used to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coati ngs) VOC limits.

The proposed Project’s unmitigated construction emissions are estimated to be well below the SCAQMD daily emissions significance thresholds.

As a special condition of the HDP, the applicant will be required to use off -road construction equipment that meet United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 Final off -road emission standards, as specified below in Special Condition AQ-1.

Special Condition AQ -1. Non-Road Engine Emission Standards. Permittee shall ensure that a ll construction equipment meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 non-road engine standards. Prior to construction, Permittee shall instruct construction crews on the implementation of Special Conditions.

Special Condition AQ -1 would further reduce the off -road equipment engine emissions, particularly the NOX and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions. However, since the unmitigated emissions are

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-10
below the SCAQMD emissions significance thresholds no emissions mitigation is required and Special Condition AQ-1 is not identified as a CEQA mitigation measure, and its implementation has not been assumed to determine the construction emissions significance findings.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Operation
The proposed Project would not increase site staffing or the crude oil throughput for the facility, but it has the potential to increase fuel oil throughput at the loading racks during atypical operations, such as when a pipeline is bei ng serviced, which would increase fugitive VOC emissions, increase use of and emissions from the thermal oxidizer loading rack vapor control device, and increase on -road truck emissions. This increase has been estimated at a 10 percent increase in daily lo ading rack use that corresponds to an increase in three truck loading visits, at 15 30 miles per round trip, per day. Additionally, the two new tanks would create additional fugitive VOC emissions from tank operations . The new tank VOC emissions were estimated by SCAQMD as part of the review of the Applicant’s revised permit to construct/operate application for the proposed Project’s new tanks. SCAQMD used the current USEPA AP-42 Section 7.1 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks (USEPA, 2020) methodology, assuming a Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of 10, “average” paint condition, and August as the maximum monthly emissions (SCAQMD, 2021b, 2021c ). by the Applicant using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) TANKS program and have been approved by the SCAQMD during their tank permitting process (SCAQMD, 2019b). The new tanks permits to operate the tanks would be approved after the tanks are constructed and inspected by SCAQMD.

The SCAQMD -approved peak month maximum daily VOC potential to emit for these two tanks was estimated to be 9.7 10.8 pounds per day, which is well below the SCAQMD daily operation emissio ns significance threshold of 55 pounds per day . The VOC emissions are above the SCAQMD BACT emissions threshold of one pound per day. The proposed BACT for these two tanks is the tank design comprised of an internal floating roof tank with mechanical seals. The BACT emissions controls are required by SCAQMD regulation and therefore are not considered a CEQA mitigation measure, and the unmitigated emissions estimate includes the proposed BACT tank design.

The facility’s existing potential to emit is above the SCAQMD New Source Review Rule VOC offset emissions threshold of 4 tons per year; therefore, the new tank emissions were required to be offset.

These emissions offsets were procured from the SCAQMD emissions reduction credit bank. The quantity of offsets required is 1.2 times the permitted potential to emit or 132 pounds per day after rounding; SCAQMD has approved the transfer of 12 pounds per day of VOC credits for this proposed Project and World Oil is in the process of transferring an additional pound of VOC credits which are registered at another one of their facilities (SCAQMD, 2021b, 2021c). The SCAQMD required emissions offsets are not considered a CEQA mitigation measure for the Project , and the emissions reduction created using these offsets are not included in the operation emissions significance assessment.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Table 4.3-2 provides the maximum daily emissions increase estimated for proposed Project operation. The specific operation emissions increase assumptions are provided in Appendix A.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-11
Table 4.3-2. Summary of Unmitigated Maximum Daily Operation Emissions Increase Estimates (Pounds Per Day)
VOC CO NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5
On-road 0.04202 0.1809 1.210.60 0.00 0.0904 0.0301
Tank Fugitive VOC1 10.829.70 -- -- -- -- --
Loading Racks/Vapor Control 0.09 0.16 0.20 0.00 0.01 0.01 Total Emissions 10.95939.81 0.3425 1.410.81 0.00 0.1006 0.0403 Significance Threshold 75 550 100 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix A; SCAQMD, 2019a; SCAQMD, 2019b.; SCAQMD, 2021b; SCAQMD, 2021c;, and Yorke, 2021. 1-These emissions will be have been offset at a 1.2:1 ratio (132 pounds per day of VOC emissions reduction credits) per SCAQMD NSR regulation requirements, so that the offset emissions total would be minus 2.19 pound per day.

SCAQMD performed independent calculations to estimate hydrogen sulfide (H 2S) emissions assuming a worst-case of 3 percent sulfur of H2S from the SDS Gas Oil, Virgin Tesoro product and August emissions due to warmer temperatures (SCAQMD, 2021b, 2021c ). The H2S emissions total from the two tanks was estimated to be 0.0135 pounds per hour and 0.0116 pounds per year.

The proposed Project ’s unmitigated operation emissions are estimated to be well below the SCAQMD daily emissions significance thresholds.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Discussion
The Project site is on Pier C within the Port. The Port is surrounded by a buffer of industrial/commercial areas and natural boundaries such as the Los Angeles River Channel between most Port operating areas and nearby sensitive receptors. For the purposes of CEQA analysis, sensitive receptors include residences (including senior care f acilities), schools, daycares, and hospitals. The nearest residential receptors (911 W. Chester Place, Long Beach) are located approximately 0.5 mile (800 meters) from the new tank area.

The nearest school, Edison Elementary School, is located more than a half -mile (over 880 meters) from the new tank area. The nearest hospital and known daycare facility are located further than the nearest residences and school.

SCAQMD has recommended localized emissions significance thresholds for construction and operat ion emissions based on modeled maximum Project concentration levels to address potentially significant Project-level criteria pollutant health impacts. SCAQMD has developed tabulated emissions thresholds based on the construction site size and distance to receptor (in meters) . The proposed Project ’s construction and operation emissions are compared to these thresholds for the determination of significance. Additionally, SCAQMD has significance criteria for toxic air contaminants (TACs). The TACs of concern for th e proposed Project during construction is diesel particulate matter (DPM) and during operation is the speciated VOC emissions from the new crude oil tanks . The proposed Project’s TAC emissions health risk impacts are assessed against the SCAQMD significance criteria below.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-12
Construction
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Table 4.3-3 presents the maximum daily construction emissions compared to the SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold (LST) emissions for a one-acre construction site located 500 meters from the nearest sensitive receptor.

Table 4.3-3. Summary of Maximum Localized Daily Construction Emission Estimates (Pounds Per Day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Total Emissions 32.3 23.2 1.8 1.3
Localized Significance Threshold 142 7,558 158 55
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix A; SCAQMD, 2009.

Table 4.3-3 conservatively includes all construction emissions, both on-site and off -site emissions, while the LST significance criteria is based on only on-site construction emissions.

The on-site DPM emissions during construction would occur over a relatively short period (approximately

10.5 months) in relation to life-time exposure periods; however, DPM has a high cancer potency.

Therefore, a screening health risk assessment of the proposed Project’s construction DPM emissions was completed. Health risk assessments can be completed using more conservative screening level methods to more sophisticated refined modeling methods that include air dispersion modeling techniques. An initial screening level approach from SCAQMD risk assessment guidance, using California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ( OEHHA) risk assessment methods guidance for short-term projects (OEHHA, 2015), was completed . A conservative worst-case DPM concentration was estimated based on annualized on -site DPM emissions of 0.0 663 tons (per the CalEEMod emissions estimate in Appendix A for all exhaust particulate emissions ) multiplied by the SCAQMD published Chi/Q (Χ/Q) dispersion factor (units of [µg/m3]/[ton/year]) for diesel engines (rating between 3 00 and 4 00 break horsepower and use less than 12 hours per day) that have a downwind distance of approximately 800 meters at the Project area’s Source Receptor Area (SRA) nearest meteorological station ( Long Beach Airport). This Chi/Q value in Table 10.3 A in the SCAQMD guidance manual appendix is interpolated as

0.04 (SCAQMD, 2017). Therefore, the maximum DPM concentration value using this screening technique is 0.0663 tons/year x 0.04 = 2.65 x 10-3 µg/m3. Using this concentration of DPM in the OEHHA/CARB Risk Assessment Standalone Tool (RAST) model, assuming the worst -case one -year exposure period which starts in the third trimester of pregnancy, the worst-case screening level risks are calculated to be 4.72 x 10-7 for cancer and a chronic health index of 5.30 x 10-4 (DPM emissions do not have acute health risk reference exposure levels, so acute impacts are not provided in RAST for DPM emissions). For off-site workers, at 100 meters from the construction area, the Chi/Q values would be 1.79 with a resulting annual concentration of 0.119 µg/m3. Using the same methods and modeling procedures the maximum worker risks were determined to be 3.07 x 10-7 for cancer and a chronic health index of 2.38 x 10-2. SCAQMD has published TACs health risk significance thresholds of 10 in a million (10 x 10 -6) for increased cancer risk and health index values of more tha n 1.0 for chronic and acute risk (SCAQMD, 2019a). Therefore, the screening-level cancer risk for maximum exposed residents is over 20 times below the cancer risk significance threshold and the screening-level chronic risk is over 1,800 times below the significance level; and the maximum cancer risk for maximum exposed workers is over 30 times below the cancer risk significance threshold and the screening-level chronic risk is over 40 times below the significance level.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-13
The proposed tank coatings are low VOC coatings that do not have substantial amounts of TACs. However, they do contain small amounts of ethyl benzene, xylene, and methyl ethyl ketone that all have California approved risk assessment cancer slope or exposure level factors for chronic and/or acute health risks.

However, these risk factors are much higher (i.e., less conservative) than those for DPM. As such, the risks from the coating TAC emissions would cause impacts well below SCAQMD health risk significance thresholds. Therefore, construction emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and construction impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Table 4.3-4 presents the maximum daily operation on-site emissions increase compared to the SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold (LST) emissions for a one-acre operating area located 500 meters from the nearest sensitive receptor.

Table 4.3-4. Summary of Maximum Localized Daily Operation On-Site Emission Increase Estimates (Pounds Per Day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Total Emissions 0.20 0.16 0.01 0.01
Localized Significance Threshold 142 7,558 38 23
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix A; SCAQMD, 2009.

There are no SCAQMD LST thresholds for VOC emissions, and the VOC emissions for the proposed Project are below the SCAQMD daily emissions threshold of 55 pounds per day as noted above in Section 4.3(b).

Therefore, the non -speciated VOC emissions increase from the proposed Project’s operation have less than significant emissions. Furthermore, SCAQMD performed a cancer health risk assessment for the new tanks, using a conservative assumption for the TACs emissions rates by assuming TAC fractions from gasoline rather than crude oil, and found that health risks were well below the CEQA cancer health risk CEQA significance threshold of 10 x 10 -6 for the maximum exposed sensitive receptors (1.585 x 10 -7) (SCAQMD, 2019, 2021b, 2021c). The increase in loading rack emissions, from fuel oil vapors, would have negligible TAC emissions and the trucking emissions occur over a large area and would not create substantial localized health impacts. The combined construction and operation emissions health risks (3.07 x 10-7 + 1.5 x 10-7 = 4.57 x 10-7) would be well below the SCAQMD health risk CEQA significance thresholds. Therefore, operation emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and operation impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. During construction there would be a short-term increase in air pollutants primarily due to the combustion of diesel fuel from construction equipment and from tank interior and exterior coating. There is potential for some individuals to find diesel combustion emissions or the coating VOC emissions as objectionable odors. However, given the quantity of odorous emissions and the distance between Project emission sources and the nearest sensitive residential receptors (i.e., approximately 800 meters), adequate dispersion of these emissions to below objectionable odor levels would be anticipated.

Furthermore, the Project site is located within the Port where existing industrial operations at nearby

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-14
container terminals include freight and goods movement activities (i.e., use of diesel trucks and diesel cargo-handling equipment) which generate similar odors. Therefore, impacts from construction would be less than significant.

During proposed Project operation there would be an increase in fugitive VOC and H2S emissions from the two new tanks, and the loading racks, and an increase in the exhaust emissions from the loading rack vapor control thermal oxidizer and the increase in tanker truck trips. The thermal oxidizer exhaust would not have substantial odors and the truck emissions odors would be minor and would be dispersed over a long transportation route, so these emissions sources would not have the potential to adversely affect a substantial number of people. The crude oil fugitive VOC and H2S emissions and increased loading rack fuel oil fugitive VOC emissions include a mixture of odorous substances and the smell of crude and fuel oils are something most Southern Californians have experienced and recognize due to the extensive oil production, refining, and fuel storage and marketing facilities in Southern California. H 2S has a rotten egg
odor that most people find offensive. Therefore, if t he downwind concentration of these substances would be high enough there c ould beRegardless, there is the potential for individuals to find such odors as objectionable. Using SCAQMD Rule 1402 screening-level risk assessment procedures the 1-hour acute concentration for all VOCs and for H2S have been predicted (see Appendix A) with the following results:
 Total VOC < 5 µg/m3
 H2S < 1.4 x 10-5 µg/m3
The mean odor threshold for the organic compounds in crude oil typically range from the low hundreds of µg/m3, naphthalene has a mean odor threshold of approximately 200 µg/m3 (0.038 ppm), to hundreds of thousands of µg/m 3 or more; benzene has a mean odor threshold over 300,000 ug/m 3 (97 ppm). The acute concentration of each these odorous organi c substances will be a small fraction of the total VOC concentrations, so there is no potential for any of these substances to cause objectionable odors to a substantial number of people.

The California Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS) for H2S is 0.03 ppm (30 ppb, 42 ug/m3) for one hour, adopted with the purpose of decreasing odor annoyance, was based on the geometric mean odor threshold measured in adults. The predicted acute H2S concentration is over three million times less than the mean odor threshold. SCAQMD also performed independent calculations of H2S concentrations (only) of 2.08 ppb on-site (9.1 meters), 0.14 ppb at closest commercial receptor 90 meters away; 0.008 ppb at closest residential receptor 763 meters away (on W. Chester Place), and 0.007 ppb at closest school 838 meters from the source (Edison Elementary School) (SCAQMD, 2021b, 2021c).

The predicted maximum acute concentration of operation emissions odorous substances at the nearest sensitive receptor location would be several orders of magnitude below the respective odor thresholds.

Therefore, However, given the Project ’s emissions rates and the distance between Project emission sources and the nearest sensitive receptors (i.e. , approximately 800 meters ), it is predicted that the downwind concentrations of the Project ’s operation odorous emissions would be well adequate dispersion of these odorous emissions to below objectionable odor thresholds,levels would be and substantial numbers of people would not be adversely affected by odors from the proposed Project.

Therefore, impacts from operation would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-15

4.4 Biological Resources

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biolog- ical resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. A site visit was conducted by Aspen Environmental Group on March 3, 2020.

An updated records search of the California Natural Diversity Database was conducted on March 16, 2020.

The Project area is covered by gravel or paved with concrete with patches of invasive grasses and herbaceous weeds. The site is surrounded by a heavily industrial area containing multiple commercial and private businesses and other operations facilities. The Project area is bordered by paved roads and is adjacent to Channel 2 of the Cerritos Channel in the Port of Long Beach ( MBC and Merkel & Associates, 2016). Construction of the two new oil tanks would occur in the northwestern cor ner of an existing petroleum bulk station (see Figure 2-2).

Special-Status Plants
The proposed Project would not directly or indirectly impact plants identified as special-status species by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the Uni ted States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). All plant species observed during the site visit in 2020 consisted of non-native grasses and herbaceous weedy species. These included but are not limited to common mallow ( Malva sp.), brome

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-16
grasses (Bromus spp.), dandelion (Taraxacum spp.), and burclover (Medicago spp). Where vegetation was present it was most commonly found in shaded gravel-filled areas and along fences. No special -status plant species were identified during the site visit and no suitable habitat is present. Therefore, no impacts would occur to special-status plants.

Special-Status Wildlife
Some of the wildlife detected on or near the site included gull s (Larus spp.), rock pigeon (Columbia livia), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus). Wildlife species known to occur on or near the site include, but are not limited to , m allard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ), barn swallow ( Hirundo rustica) , house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), western gull (Larus occidentalis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and snowy egret (Egretta thula) (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2020). Additionally, species such as osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) have been observed flying over the site ( Dougherty, 2020) but are not expected to nest at the site . No special-status wildlife was observed on-site and is not expected to occur due to the lack of suitable habitat. Therefore, impacts to wildlife would be less than significant.

The nearest designated nesting site for a special -status species is located on a portion of Pier 400 of the Port of Los Angeles for the endangered California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) (MBC and Merkel & Associates, 2016). The nesting site is approximately 4.4 miles southwest of the Project area.

The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits take of any migratory bird, including active nests, except as permitted by regulation (e.g., waterfowl or upland game bird hunting). The MBTA broadly defines “migratory bird” as “any species or family of birds that live, reproduce or migrate within or across international borders at some point during their annual life cycle” and thus applies to most native bird species. California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 prohibits take or possession of birds of prey or their eggs; and Section 3513 prohibits take or possession of any migratory nongame bird. With the exception of a few non-native birds such as the house sparrow (Passer domesticus), the take of any birds or active bird nests or young is regulated by these statutes. Due to the highly industrialized nature of the Project site being an active petroleum bulk station and terminal, impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant.

However, should any demolition, excessive noise, or heavy plant trimming occur during the nesting season (typically February 1 to August 31), as a special condition of the HDP, the Applicant will be required to follow the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as specified below in Special Condition BIO-1.

Special Condition BIO-1. Nesting Bird Surveys. To prevent taking active bird nests during the nesting season (approximately February 1 through August 31), the following measures shall be implemented by the Applicant as appropriate:
• Prior to the onset of construction activities (i.e., mobilization, staging, demolition, or heavy plant trimming) during the nesting season, the Applican t shall retain a qualified avian biologist to conduct pre- construction surveys in all areas located within 300 feet of the Project area. The required survey dates may be modified based on local conditions, as determined by the qualified avian biologist.
• If breeding birds with active nests are found prior to or during construction, the qualified avian biologist will establish a species-appropriate non-disturbance buffer and will periodically monitor the nest during construction activity.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-17
• During construction within the nesting season, activities will be periodically monitored to ensure that no new nest building occurs within work areas.
• The Applicant shall provide weekly reports describing monitoring actions, relevant observations, and any protective actions taken to the POLB Director of Environmental Planning.

The open water areas of the Port provide important nursery and foraging habitat for coastal marine fish and nesting and foraging habitat for many resident and migratory birds. The waterways in and around the Port also provide habitat for marine mammals, which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MBC and Merkel & Associates, 2016). The Project area is separated from the water’s edge by occupied industrial-use lots and the proposed Project does not include in -water or over-water construction or operations. As described under Section 4.10(a), no water quality impacts would occur during construction or operations that could have potential impacts on adjacent marine systems. Therefore, no impacts to special-status marine species would occur.
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? NO IMPACT. The site consists of an industrial-use area and does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, polices, regulations or by the CDFW or the USFWS (USFWS, 2019a; 2019b) . Eelgrass beds ( Zostera marina), a special aquatic site (vegetated shallows) pursuant to the Clean Water Act and a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC), a subset of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), are located in the Inner Harbor/Back Channel, approximately 1 mile from the Project area, and in the Cerritos Channel, approximately 1.5 miles from the Project area (MBC and Merkel & Associates, 2016). Kelp beds ( Laminariales ssp.), another marine HAPC , are also present within the various harbors and basins at the POLB and Port of Los Angeles. The nearest kelp bed is approximately 2.5 miles south of the Project area in West Basin ( MBC and Merkel & Associates, 2016). Any potential pollutants from site run -off during construction would be removed prior to draining into any water system, in compliance with the Construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirements. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
N
O IMPACT. There are no federally protected wetlands on the Project site as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The nearest recognized wetland to the Project site is the Golden Shore Marine Biological Reserve, a 3.07-acre estuarine and marine wetland located approximately one mile southeast of the Project area (USFWS, 2020). The Project area is adjacent to the water, but construction activity would not significantly impact water quality with implementation of proper SWPPP measures (s ee Section 4.10 , Hydrology and Water Quality, for details). Construction of the proposed Project would be confined to the immediate Project area and no in - or over-water construction or operations are proposed. No activities would occur within or near wetlands. The proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-18
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
N
O IMPACT. The Project area is within a dense, highly developed industrial area and does not overlap with an established migratory wildlife corridor or nursery . The Project site is entirely terrestrial, and implementation would not impact any marine species that may be present (MBC and Merkel & Associates, 2016). Due to the lack of suitable habitat, the proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
N
O IMPACT. The proposed Project involves the construction of two additional tanks on the existing petroleum bulk station. Some patches of non -native weedy species would be removed to allow for construction activity to occur. The City of Long Beach Municipal Code (LMBC Section 14.28.060) prohibits the cutting, trimming, pruning, removing, or in any way interfering with the natural growth of any tree planted along City streets or on other City property without having first obtained a permit from the Director of Public Works. No trees would be removed as a result of proposed Project activities. Any non- native vegetation that may be removed is not protected by City ordinances ( LBCMC, 2020a). Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinanc es protecting biological resources, and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
N
O IMPACT. There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other similar plans that overlap with the Project area in the Port of Long Beach (USWFS, 2019a; 2019b).

The nearest conservation plan area is the Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Community Conservation Plan area, which is located approximately 6.5 miles west of the Project area (City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 2018). Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-19

4.5 Cultural Resources

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to §15064.5 [§15064.5 generally defines historical resource under CEQA]?water NO IMPACT. The proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change or affect a historical resource. The Project site is located in the southern portion of the County of Los Angeles in the Northeast Harbor Planning District (District 2) of Long Beach Harbor (POLB), which is an artificial landform composed of hydraulic and import capping fill measuring 39 feet thick (Albus-Keefe, 2018). Aspen obtained a record search and literature information from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) on April 1, 2020, which did not show the presence of any eligible or listed historic properties within the Project area (see Appendix B). Since there are no significant historical resources located within the Project area, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
N
O IMPACT. The proposed Project would not cause substantial adverse change or affect an archaeological resource. As discussed above, the Project area is located within the existing World Oil Terminal, which is an artificial landform composed of hydraulic and imported capping fill (Albus-Keefe, 2018). The record search and literature information obtained from SCCIC did not show the presence of any significant archaeological resources within the Project area. Since there are no significant archaeological resources located within the Project area and planned ground disturbance is within hydraulic and import fill, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
N
O IMPACT. The proposed Project would not disturb any human remains. The Project area is within an already disturbed context and the soil within the Project area is hydraulic and imported fill. The proposed Project has ground disturbance planned within fill soils only, and background archival research failed to find any potential for human remains (e.g., the existence of formal cemeteries). Therefore, the proposed Project would not disturb any human remains.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-20

4.6 Energy
ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
a. Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed Project would consume energy in the form of on -road vehicle and off-road equipment fuels, diesel and gasoline, during construction. The proposed Project is designed to be constructed as efficiently as possible and would reuse or recycle construction waste to the extent feasible and according to state and City of Long Beach Municipal Code requirements (see Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems), such as the reuse of excavated soil and concrete waste spoils.

The proposed Project would not increase the facility operations and maintenance personnel requirements, would not substantially increase on -site electricity use, and would not only increase long- term transportation fuel consumption from trucking. As described in the Section 2.11 (Operations and Maintenance), fuel delivery truck trips are not anticipated to increase because of the proposed Project; however, as a worst-case assumption to account for atypical operations such as when a pipeline is out of service, a 10 percent increase in maximum daily truck trips has been assumed. by an estimated 10 percent due to the anticipated increase in fuel oil transport related to the proposed project’s increase in available leased tank storage. The proposed Project does not increase World Oil’s crude oil throughput transported by crude oil tanker trucks. All operations fuelThis additional delivery trucking would be completed using newer more fuel-efficient trucks that comply with the Port’s Clean Truck ProgramCalifornia Air Resources Board Drayage Truck Regulation. The proposed Project would also cause a small increase in the maximum daily, but not long-term, use of natural gas used by the loading rack vapor control thermal oxidizer, which is an emissions control device mandated for use by SCAQMD. Therefore, the proposed Project would not include the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed Project does not include renewable energy production, does not restrict renewable energy projects or production, and does not restrict the use of renewable energy.

The Project does not include energy consumption sources during construction that are directly subject to state or local energy efficiency plans.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-21
The proposed Project would not increase crude oil trucking or notably increase current on-site energy use.

The proposed Project would increase total fuel oil storage capacity and may is expected to create a small maximum daily, but not long-term, increase to the leased fuel oil storage load out and truck transport from the facility. The new storage tanks are not subject to State of California Green Building regulations (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24); and the proposed Project does not include the construction of any new structures that would be subject to these regulations. The proposed Project includes Additionally, the proposed project does not include the construction/installation of a few small any new energy consumption sources, namely such as fuel pipeline two new pumps that will be dedicated to the new tanks and associated throughput metering and piping controls electronics . These new energy consumption sources are not subject to state or local regulations, such as the , that would be subject to State of California efficiency regulations (CCR Title 20) that apply to consumer appliances, but do not apply to industrial equipment. Indirectly, on-road vehicles used during construction and operation would have to meet the ongoing federal and s tate fuel efficiency requirements. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-22

4.7 Geology and Soils

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c. Be located on geologic units or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?*
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
*Geology and Soils question (d) reflects the current 2016 California Building Code (CBC), which is based on the International Building Code (2015), effective January 1, 2017. The CBC is updated every three years.

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

NO IMPACT. Fault rupture is the surface displacement that occurs when movement on a fault within the earth breaks through to the surface. Fault rupture and displacement almost always follows preexisting faults, which are zones of weakness. The proposed Project is located within an area of Southern California with numerous active and potentially active faults of the north -northwest trending San Andreas Fault system and the east-west trending Transverse Ranges Fault system.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-23
The Project site is not located within a mapped Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor do any active faults cross the Project site (CGS, 1999 a). The closest Alquist -Priolo zoned faults include the Newport - Inglewood Fault located approximately 3 miles southwest and the Palos Verdes Fault located approximately 4 miles to the northwest ( USGS and CGS, 2015). The proposed Project would not include habitable structures and would therefore not result in a change or increase in the seismic hazard to people. No active or potentially active faults cross or are in close proximity to the Project site. Therefore, there is no potential impact from surface fault rupture.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed Project is in a seismically active area of Southern California in close proximity to active faults of the San Andreas Fault System, Newport-Inglewood, and Palos Verdes Fault Zones. The Project site is not located within nor crossed by any active faults and the Newport - Inglewood fault is located appr oximately 3 miles northeast of the Project site. Strong ground shaking should be expected in the event of a large earthquake on any of the major faults in the region or on the faults near the Project site.

The intensity of the seismic shaking, or strong ground motion, during an earthquake is dependent on the distance between the Project area and the epicenter of the earthquake, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the geologic conditions underlying and surrounding the Project area. Earthquakes occurring on faults closest to the Project area would most likely generate the largest ground motion. The California Geological Survey (CGS) Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Ground Motion Interpolator website was used to estimate peak ground accelerations at the Project site for a large regional or local earthquake (CGS, 2020). Peak ground acceleration is the maximum acceleration experienced by a particle on the Earth’s surface during the course of an earthquake, and the units of acceleration are most commonly measured in terms of fractions of g, the acceleration due to gravity (980 cm/sec2). The interpolator uses data from the 2008 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment Maps to interpolate peak ground accelerations with a two percent probability of exceedance in 50 years which corresponds to a return interval of 2,475 years for a maximum considered earthquake. Peak ground accelerations at the proposed Project site is approximately 0.7 g, which corresponds to strong to very strong ground shaking (CGS, 2020).

A ground improvement system consisting of Geopiers or the equivalent rammed aggregate piers would reduce the effects of static and seismic settlement at the Project site (Albus-Keefe, 2018). Additionally, a mat-raft foundation system consisting of a mat supported by caissons/piles for the two tanks would reduce the potential for seismically induced damage to the new tanks from seismic shaking, liquefaction, or lateral spreading (Albus -Keefe, 2018). The final Project design would incorporate all geotechnical recommendations provided in the Albus-Keefe & Associates geotechnical update report from 2018 (Albus- Keefe & Associates, 2018).The final project design would be reviewed by Albus-Keefe & Associates, as the design implements recommendations of the geotechnical inves tigation report (Matrix , 2019). Although the site is likely to experience strong to very strong ground shaking within its lifetime, implementation of the geotechnical investigation report’s recommendations in the final Project design ensures that impacts from ground shaking would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-24
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which saturated granular sediments temporarily lose their shear strength during periods of earthquake-induced strong ground shaking. The susceptibility of a site to liquefaction is a function of the depth, density, and water content of the granular sediments, and the magnitude and frequency of earthquakes in the surrounding region. Saturated, unconsolidated silts, sands, and silty sands within 50 feet of the ground surface are most susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction-related phenomena include lateral spreading, ground oscillation, flow failures, loss of bearing strength, subsidence, and buoyancy effects. In addition, densification of the soil resulting in vertical settlement of the ground can also occur. This phenomenon can result in damage to infrastructure, including foundations. The Project area is mapped as being in a liquefaction hazard area on the CGS Seismic Hazard Map (CGS, 1999b). Liquefaction analyses conducted as part of the geotechnical investigation for the proposed Project by Albus -Keefe & Associates in September 2018 indicates that various layers below a depth of 5 feet are potentially liquefiable (Albus -Keefe, 2018). The geotechnical investigation report states that ground improvements should be considered to help mitigate the effects of liquefaction (Albus -Keefe, 2018). The final P roject design would incorporate all geotechnical recommendations provided in the Albus-Keefe & Associates geotechnical update report from 2018 (Albus- Keefe & Associates, 2018). The final project design would be reviewed by Albus-Keefe & Associates, as the design implements recommendations of the geotechnical investigation report ( Matrix, 2019). Therefore, the impacts from seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
iv) Landslides?
NO IMPACT. The slope stability of an area is influenced by the steepness of the slope, the relative strength of the underlying rock material, and the thickness and cohesion of the overlying artificial fill and alluvium.

Alluvium is material carried by running water, such as rivers or streams. The steeper the slope and/or the less strong the rock, the more likely the area is susceptible to landslides. An indication of unstable slopes is the presence of old or recent landslides or debris flows. The proposed Project is adjacent to Channel 2 of the Cerritos Channel to the north. The Project site is located on flat terrain and more than 50 feet from the rock dike slopes of Channel No. 2. Although the site is underlain by varying thickness of artificial fill overlying alluvial sediments that may be susceptible to liquefaction and lateral spreading as discussed above, the rock dike stabilizes the channel slopes and the slope is not subject to landslides. The Project site is not subject to slope stability issues. The CGS seism ic hazard mapping indicates that there are no areas of potential earthquake -induced landslides in the POLB (CGS, 1999b). No potential impact from earthquake-induced landslides or landslides triggered by other factors would occur at the Project site.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Construction of the proposed Project, including drilling and excavation, could result in erosion at the Project site. Construction vehicles and equipment may degrade and disturb soils, which may subsequently be transported by wind and/or surface water runoff (in response to precipitation), accelerating the erosion processes. It is not anticipated that the proposed Project would result in substantial soil erosion, but temporary and site-specific impacts may occur. The proposed Project would be constructed in compliance with a Construction SWPP P, which includes Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce or avoid effects associated with erosion. Implementation of the construction- level SWPPP and associated BMPs would reduce potential erosion. Additionally, the NPDES permit

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-25
obtained for the Project would require BMP measures to control erosion during construction. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c. Would the project be located on geologic units or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The site is underlain by hydraulic fill as deep as 48 feet below the existing ground surface and is very compressible (Albus-Keefe, 2018). Additional site conditions including shallow groundwater, potential for liquefaction, lateral spreading, and estimates of significant static and seismic settlements, requires structural foundations to mitigate settlement and the effects of liquefaction for the proposed tanks (Albus-Keefe, 2018). To reduce the effects of static and seismic settlement at the Project site, a ground improvement system consisting of Geopiers or the equivalent rammed aggregate piers is recommended in the geotechnical investigation report (Albus-Keefe, 2018). Additional recommendations include a mat-raft foundation system consisting of a mat supported by caissons/piles for the two tanks, which would reduce the potential for seismically induced damage to the proposed Project from seismic shaking, liquefaction, or lateral spreading (Albus-Keefe, 2018). The final Project design would incorporate all geotechnical recommendations provided in the Albus -Keefe & Associates geotechnical update report from 2018 (Albus-Keefe & Associates, 2018). The final project design would be reviewed by Albus -Keefe & Associates, as the design implements recommendations of the geotechnical inves tigation report (Matrix, 2019) . The final Project design would implement the recommendations o f the geotechnical investigation report. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The near-surface soils underlying the Project site have a moderate expansion potential based on Unified Soil C lassification System visual manual classification (Albus-Keefe, 2018).

Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume change (shrink and swell) due to variation in soil moisture content. Changes in soil moisture could result from a number of factors, including rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, and/or perched groundwater. Expansive soils are typically very fine grained with a high to very high percentage of clay. Soils with moderate to high shrink- swell potential would be classified as expansive soils.

The recommendations in the geotechnical report include the placement of compacted sand beneath the proposed tanks as wells as a deep foundation ; therefore, soil expansion would not be an issue (Albus - Keefe, 2018). Additionally, the geotechnical recommendations require additional testing for soil expansion to be required subsequent to rough grading and prior to the construction of foundations and other concrete flatwork (Albus-Keefe, 2018). The final Project design would incorporate all geotechnical recommendations provided in the Albus-Keefe & Associates geotechnical update report from 2018 (Albus- Keefe & Associates, 2018). The final project design would be reviewed by Albus-Keefe & Associates, as the design implements recommendations of the geotechnical inves tigation report (Matrix, 2019). The final Project design would implement the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation report.

Therefore, the impacts from expansive soils would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-26
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
NO IMPACT. The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (LACSD) maintains and operates the municipal wastewater collection system in the Project area and would continue to serve the proposed Project.

LACSD would continue to provide wastewater services to the Project site upon Project completion. The proposed Project does not involve the installation of a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system; therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
NO IMPACT. The proposed Project would not result in potentially significant effects to paleontological resources. The proposed Project is located on Pier C within the POLB and is entirely underlain by artificial fill. Artificial fill has zero paleontological significance due to its young age and disturbed nature (engineered placement). Albus -Keefe & Associates geotechnical update report from 2018 states that alluvial soils underlay the artificial fill and extend below the maximum depths (66.5 feet) encountered in the exploration borings (Albus-Keefe, 2018). Since the ground improvement system does not extend to a depth beyond 50 feet, only artificial fill would be encountered at the Project site during construction (Albus-Keefe, 2018). Therefore, no potential impacts related to paleontological resources or unique geologic features would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-27

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
The proposed Project is an industrial stationary source project that requires a permit to construct/permit to operate permitting by SCAQMD. Therefore, the SCAQMD greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions significance threshold for industrial facilities of 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/year) would apply (SCAQMD, 2019a).

The proposed Project would generate GHG emissions during construction from use of off-road equipment (such as cranes, backhoes, and welders) and from on -road construction vehicle trips (such as heavy haul trips for delivery of concrete, and commute trips by construction employees). The GHG emissions for construction were estimated along with the criteria pollutant emissions usin g the SCAQMD approved California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod version 2016.3.1), a statewide land-use emission model developed in collaboration with several local air districts. Please see Section 4.3, Air Quality Section, for additional discussion of the construction emissions estimate methodology and assumptions, and Appendix A for the CalEEMod emissions estimate output.

The proposed Project would not increase World Oil’s permitted throughput of crude oil at the truck loading racks. The proposed Project would not debottleneck the facility to allow greater actual crude oil throughput through the pipelines, tanks, or loading racks . The proposed Project would also not increase required site staffing levels. Therefore, the crude oil trucking trips and s taff commute vehicle miles traveled would not increase due to the proposed Project.

The proposed Project would allow the two existing World Oil crude oil tanks that would be replaced by this project, to serve as leased remote fuel oil product storage for other pipeline- connected facilities (Marathon Petroleum Carson Refinery and/or Marathon Petroleum Terminal assets, and the G lencore Long Beach Marine Terminal and Glencore Carson Marine Terminal). Other tanks at the Ribost Terminal are currently used in this manner. World Oil has estimated that the maximum daily total loading rack use would increase up to be 10 percent above baseline use to account for atypical operations such as when a pipeline is out of service (see Section 2.11).due to the proposed project additional leased fuel oil storage.

However, no increase in long-term fuel trucking is assumed. Theis increased leased storage also involves the pumping of fuel oils to and from these storage tanks through existing pipelines. There would also be a minor amount of increased indirect GHG emissions from the electricity used to power the two new pumps associated with the new tanks. pipeline pumps , but the amount of these increased emissions cannot be estimated as the future use of these two existing tanks is not known. Additionally, t The GHG footprint for this increased electricity use will decrease over time as the renewable energy fraction of supplied electricity increases.

The fugitive methane GHG emissions from crude oil storage and loading are negligible due to the partially processed crude oil containing only trace amounts of methane and would not increase from existing

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-28
conditions given that the proposed Project would not cause an increase in World Oil’s crude oil throughput. Therefore, there would be no operating GHG emissions increase from the proposed Project’s new tanks fugitive emissions.
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Table 4.8-1 provides a summary of the proposed Project’s estimated carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) GHG emissions, including the annual amortized construction emissions in metric tons (MT). The direct proposed Project construction GHG emissions are amortized over the Project life of 30 years for comparison with the GHG emissions significance threshold within Table 4.8-1. This project life assumption is the default assumption recommended by SCAQMD, which may be conservatively short for this Project. The Project applicant noted that storage tank life is variable but can often exceed 50 years.

Table 4.8-1 shows that the proposed Project would not create GHG emissions that would exceed the GHG emissions significance criteria; therefore, the proposed Project would have less than significant GHG emissions impacts.

Table 4.8-1. Summary of Project Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates Emissions Type CO2e
Total Construction Emissions 270.5 MT
30-Year Amortized Construction Emissions 9.0 MT/Year
Increase in Annual Operating Emissions 98.962.8 MT/Year8 Total Annual Emissions 108.071.8 MT/Year
Significance Criteria 10,000 MT/Year
Source: Appendix A; SCAQMD, 2019a; SCAQMD, 2021b; and SCAQMD, 2021c.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. A summary of project compliance with all potentially applicable GHG emissions reductions plans, strategies, policies, and regulations is provided in Table 4.8-2.

Table 4.8-2. Applicable GHG Emissions Reduction Strategies Strategy Compliance with Strategy
State AB 32 Strategies
Vehicle Climate Change Standards These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the Project site are required to comply with the standards and would comply with these strategies.

Limit Idling Time for Commercial
Vehicles
The construction contractors and fuel delivery truck operators would be required to comply with applicable idling regulations. Certain vehicle types, such as concrete mixer trucks are exempt from these idling restriction regulations. These vehicle types are exempt since idling would be necessary to complete the vehicle function.

Use of Low Carbon or Alternative
Fuels
Not directly applicable to the proposed Project, as construction and operation & maintenance vehicles are not expected or required to immediately utilize biodiesel or other renewable fuels or alternative fuels. The proposed Project will use California fuels that are subject to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard regulations; while these regulations are new and have not yet caused a large penetration of low carbon/renewable fuels the availability and use of low carbon fuels should increase during the life of Project operation. While the current facility, and the proposed Project description, does not include the storage of

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-29
Table 4.8-2. Applicable GHG Emissions Reduction Strategies Strategy Compliance with Strategy
renewable fuels; such storage is likely in the future as the production and use of renewable fuels increases to comply with State regulations. The proposed Project’s increase in the number of available storage tanks can help in the transition from petroleum-based fuels to renewable fuels during the period of time when both fuel types are in high demand.

Waste Reduction/Increase
Recycling (including construction
and demolition waste reduction)
Solid waste generated during construction of the proposed Project would be disposed of in accordance with the City of Long Beach Construction and Demolition Recycling Program (Municipal Code Chapter 18.67), which requires at least 65 percent of all Project-related construction and demolition material waste diverted from landfills (see discussion below).

Increase Water Use Efficiency Not directly applicable to the proposed Project’s construction, as the majority of the water used by the Project during construction is required by regulation for fugitive dust control, for concrete production, or for tank hydrotesting during Project construction and commissioning. There would be a small increase in operation water use related to tank clean outs, which occur once every 10 years. These tank clean outs would be completed as
efficiently as possible to save costs on waste water transportation and disposal.

Port of Long Beach and City of Long Beach Strategies
City of Long Beach General Plan –
Mobility Element, The Mobility of
Goods (October 15, 2013)
The City of Long Beach General Plan, Mobility Element was developed to improve the way people, goods, and resources are moved in Long Beach. The proposed Project would be consistent with the Mobility Element.

City of Long Beach, Sustainable
City Action Plan (February 2010)
The City of Long Beach, Sustainable City Action Plan is intended to guide operational, policy, and financial decisions to create a more sustainable Long Beach.

Although the Plan is mostly focused on city property, buildings, and public transportation, some elements refer to port-activities. The Transportation section defers to the Port’s Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) for criteria pollutant emission reductions; GHG emission reductions are not explicitly addressed, but their reduction would be a co-benefit of CAAP compliance.

CAAP Compliance will be addressed as requirements in the Project’s Harbor Development Permit.

City of Long Beach Construction
and Demolition Recycling Program
(Municipal Code Chapter 18.67)
This municipal code regulation requires covered projects to divert at least 65 percent of all project-related construction and demolition material waste. There are exceptions for materials with low recyclability, which would likely include exported excavated soil waste.

The a
pplicant intends to reuse as much of the construction waste as possible, including use in the Geopier and compacted soil foundations. Compliance with this regulation would ensure conformance with other construction waste recycling GHG emissions reduction policies.

Port of Long Beach Green Port
Policy (2005)
The Port of Long Beach Green Port Policy serves as a guide for decision making and established a framework for environmentally friendly Port operations. One of the policy’s guiding principles is to promote sustainability. The Sustainability Element and related Sustainable Business Practices Administrative Directive identifies GHG-reducing measures such as recycling programs. Compliance with the City of Long Beach Construction and Demolition Recycling Program and implementation of air quality best management practices for construction activities through the Harbor Development Permit would ensure conformance with the Green Port Policy.

Source: CARB, 2017.

In summary, the proposed Project would conform to state and local GHG emissions/climate change regulations, policies, and strategies; therefore, the proposed Project would have less-than-significant GHG impacts.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-30

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely haz- ardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would use hazardous materials such as gasoline, diesel fuel, oil, and lubricants associated with construction equipment and other vehicles and would use and store hazardous materials such as mineral oil, cleaning solvents, paints, adhesives, vehicle fuels , oil, hydraulic fluid, and other vehicle and equipment maintenance fluids in construction yards or in the onsite staging area. These hazardous materials would be transported, used, and disposed of in accordance with applicable rules, regulations, and loca l standard protocols designed to protect the environment, workers, and the public.

Minor spills or releases of hazardous materials could occur due to improper handling and/or storage practices during construction activities. Improperly maintained equipment could leak fluids during construction and while parked. Spills and leaks of hazardous materials during construction activities could potentially result in soil or groundwater contamination.

The majority of the 6-acre site including the construction and staging areas are unpaved and covered with sand and gravel, whereas 0.83 acre is paved with asphalt. An accidental release of a potentially harmful or hazardous material onto asphalt or pavement covered roads and surfaces would not directly affect soil

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-31
or water quality. However, accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials on unpaved surfaces would directly affect soil or water quality. Because the Project site and staging area is completely unpaved, a release of a hazardous material has the potenti al to infiltrate the soil. Additionally, accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials near the banks of Channel 2, could indirectly adversely affect water quality through runoff during a subsequent storm event, when the spilled material c ould be washed into the nearby channel. Accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials could also indirectly affect the soil and/or groundwater through leaching. Hazardous material spills that are left on the ground surface for an extended period or that are followed quickly by a storm event could leach through the soil and into the groundwater, thereby resulting in the degradation of groundwater quality.

Normal maintenance and refueling of construction equipment would be conducted both off -site and at the onsi te staging yard. Various waste materials would be removed as part of the proposed Project , including any concrete and abandoned underground components, and the existing out -of-service oil/water concrete separator sump at the Project site. All construction debris such as trash, scrap metal, abrasive blasting material, paint, pallets, concrete, and general construction scrap would be disposed of or recycled according to the California Green Building Standards Code and the City of Long Beach Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Program (City of Long Beach, 2007).

During Project construction, potential impacts would be avoided through implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and training construction personnel in the handling and storage of hazardous materials. The Construction SWPPP prepared for the proposed Project would provide the locations for storage of hazardous materials during construction, as well as protective measures including secondary containment , notifications, an d cleanup requirements for any incidental spills or other potential releases of hazardous materials. All refueling, maintenance, and storage of fuels and other hazardous materials would be in accordance with the Construction SWPPP. In addition, safety data sheets for any hazardous material to be used for th e proposed Project would be made available to all crew workers at the construction site.

Following construction, the operation of the new tanks would be in accordance with the existing facility SWPPP. During operation, it is estimated that approximately 1,500 bbls of sludge would be generated from cleaning a tank every 10 years. Sludge tank bottoms are would be transported offsite as hazardous waste and receivedand disposed of at bya permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilit y such as a U.S. Ecology waste facility ies. This waste is regulated by the State of California ( non-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA]) hazardous waste. The closest U.S. Ecology waste facility is located in Vernon, California, approximately 17 miles from the Project site. This facility is capable of handling a high volume of waste, with a tank capacity of one million gallons with an additional 400,000 -gallon equivalent of container storage (U.S. Ecology Vernon, 2021). The proposed Project ’s sludge tank bottom quantities are estimated to be approximately 1,500 bbl (63,000 gallons) every ten years. Over the approximate 50-year service life of the proposed Pro ject, the sludge tank bottom quantities would be equal to 15,000 bbl. This amount accounts for a small portion of the overall capacity of the U.S. Ecology Vernon facility, thus, the Project ’s contribution to the facility would not generate excessive amount s of hazardous waste.

Additionally, tank dewatering generates approximately 300 gallons of water from each tank per day as estimated from current wastewater discharge flow meter readings for the existing tanks. Water generated during tank dewatering for the new tanks would be initially treated at the onsite wastewater treatment plant and then discharged into the sanitary sewer in compliance with the facility’s Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) permit.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-32
Engineering controls on the Project site serve to prevent hazardous conditions such as a fire. The Project site contains fire extinguishing equipment and a deluge fire suppression system. The existing tanks are equipped with a foam fire suppression system , and the new tanks would be equipped with a foam fire suppression system. In the event of a large fire, the operator is trained to stop ongoing operations, close all safety isolation valves, and report the fire to the Long Beach Fire Department. The foam fire suppression system allows first responders to pump aqueous film forming foam both into and onto a tank.

The estimated response time of the Long Beach Fire Department is less than ten minutes.

Compliance with risk reduction requirements is achieved through implementation of existing emergency contingency plans, which include precautions to minimize potential hazards and actions to take during an emergency. Existing emergency contingency plans include the Emergency Response Action Plan, Facility Response Plan, Illness and Injury Prevention Plan, and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan.

The proposed Project requires all plans to be updated to reflect the new tanks. World Oil is not required to comply with California Accidenta l Release Prevention or any related risk reduction regulations. World Oil would continue to conduct annual trainings and quarterly/annual emergency drills, have evacuation plans, and shutdown procedures.

Implementation of a Construction SWPPP and the existing facility SWPPP for operations would reduce the potential impact from spills of hazardous materials to soil, groundwater, and to Channel 2 to less than significant. The proper disposal of tank sludge bottoms and implementation of fire safety procedures would prevent the release of hazardous materials to the public. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. Spills of hazardous materials could occur due to improper handling and/or storage practices during construction or operation activities andcould potentially caus e soil or groundwater contamination, or contamination of the adjacent Channel 2. Implementation of a Construction SWPPP , and the existing facility SWPPP , and existing emergency contingency plans would reduce the potential impact from spills of hazardous materials to soil and groundwater and to Channel 2 to less than significant.

Furthermore, the POLB performed a hazard assessment for the existing facility as part of the POLB RMP Guideline Analysis World Oil’s Ribost Terminal. Th e a ssessment assumed the hazard footprint or vulnerability zone based on the release of the most volatile material stored at the terminal (marine diesel) into the largest impoundment basin (containment wall) and complete failure of a loading hose at the truck unloading rack, including a consequence an alysis under POLB -prescribed weather conditions (Quest, 2018). The assessment determined that the hazard footprint of the facility would not change with the addition of the proposed new tanks because they would be smaller than the existing tanks at the facility, would store the same or similar types of fuel, and are located w ithin the containment wall (POLB, 2021).

Therefore, hazards to the public or the environment from an accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-33
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? NO IMPACT. The proposed Project would not use or handle acutely hazardous materials . There are no schools within 0.25 miles of the proposed Project . The closest school to the Project site is the Edison Elementary School, located approximately 0.5 mile east of the proposed Project site and staging area. The second closest school is Cesar Chavez Elementary school, which is located approximately 0.6 mile east of the proposed Project site and staging area. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
L
ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the proposed Project is not listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site (Cortese) List (DTSC, 2020). There are two former or active cleanup sites less than 0.14 mile from the Project site.

One leaking underground storage tank ( LUST) cleanup site is located approximately 0.14 mile northeast of the proposed Project site at the Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Company (SWRCB, 2020). The LUST cleanup at Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Company has been completed and the case was closed November 1996 (SWRCB, 2020). A spill was reported in June 1988 at Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Company, and potential contaminants of concern included gasoline (SWRCB, 2020). One open Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB) cleanup program site, Arco Marine Terminal – T3, is located approximately 0.11 mile southeast of the proposed Project site (SWRCB, 2020). Arco Marine Terminal – T3 includes six above-ground heavy petroleum storage tanks located within containment walls. A groundwater sampling and analysis plan was approved in 1995 by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) (SWRCB, 2020). The LARWQCB approved a light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) recovery optimization work plan in 2002 (SWRCB, 2020). This work plan includes site modifications to optimize LNAPL recovery at the site, as well as quarterly monitoring reports (SWRCB, 2020). Implementation of the proposed Project would not interfere with the ongoing cleanup of the Arco Marine Terminal – T3 site. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? N
O IMPACT. The Project site is not located within 2 miles of a public airport. The Long Beach Municipal Airport is located over 4 miles northeast of the site at its closest point. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in an airport- related safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area (see also Section 4.13(c)).

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
NO IMPACT. The proposed Project is contained entirely within the Long Beach Harbor District POLB, and is serviced by the Long Beach Fire Department, the Long Beach Police Department, and the Port Harbor

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-34
Patrol for fire protection, police protection, and emergency services. Construction and operation of the proposed Project is subject to existing emergency response protocols and evacuation systems adopted by World Oil in their Emergency Response Action Plan. The proposed Project is not expected to substantially affect traffic circulation ( see Section 4.17, Transportation) or increase demand on existing emergency response services during construction (see Section 4.15, Public Services). All construction activities would take place outside of main public roadways and thoroughfares and would not result in temporary blockage or closure of local access routes within the POLB. The proposed Project would not impair or interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
NO IMPACT. The World Oil facility POLB is not located in a wildland fire hazard area. The POLB and Project area are listed as “not burnable” on the U.S. Forest Service Wildfire Hazard Potential website (USFS, 2020).

Additionally, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) map of High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area for the State of California, the proposed Project is not within a High Fire Risk Area (CAL FIRE, 2007). Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-35

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source and certain non -point source discharges to surface water. Those discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimina tion System (NPDES) permit process (CWA Section 402). NPDES permitting authority is delegated to, and administered by, California’s nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulates the NPDES stormwater program. The proposed Project is under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB and the SWRCB.

The proposed Project would disturb more than one acre as part of grading and excavation activities for the foundations of the new tanks, and as such, is required to obtain NPDES coverage under the California General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Pr evention Plan (SWPPP). As such, t he applicant would prepare a Construction SWPPP, which would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce or avoid effects associated with erosion. These BMPs would

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-36
include measures to contain runoff from vehicle washing at the construction site, prevent sediment from disturbed areas from entering the POLB receiving waters using perimeter BMPs (i.e., straw wattles, silt fences, sandbags, fiber rolls, or a gravel bag berm), and cover and contain stockpiled materials to prevent sediment and pollutant transport. Construction activities would follow the Construction SWPPP prepared by the a pplicant. Additionally, the NPDES permit obtained for the proposed Project would also require BMP measures to control erosion during construction.

Construction of the proposed Project would not directly require the use of groundwater but would include excavation activities that may require dewatering due to the presence of shall ow groundwater on-site.

The updated geotechnical report states that groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 5 to 6 feet below the existing ground surface (Albus -Keefe, 2018). Temporary dewatering during construction would generate small volumes of water that would be contained in on -site water tanks and tested for contamination in order to determine the appropriate method of disposal. Any discharges of dewatering fluids to the harbor would be required to comply with the NPDES General Permit for W aste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Groundwater from Construction and Project Dewatering to Surface Waters in Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Additionally, the water test results would be sent to the POLB as proof of meeti ng NPDES permit requirements prior to discharge into the harbor. Groundwater would be disposed of in accordance with applicable regional, State, and federal regulatory requirements. Groundwater would not be discharged to open waters. The two new tanks would also undergo an NPDES permitted hydrotest to check for leaks and structural integrity.

Approximately 50,000 bbl of water sourced from the Long Beach Water Department would be used for the hydrotest. Once conducted, the hydrotest discharge would be tested for any contaminants and then dechlorinated. The water test results would be sent to the POLB as proof of meeting NPDES permit requirements prior to discharge into the harbor.

Implementation of all BMPs would ensure runoff and discharges during the Projec t construction would not violate any water quality standards. Compliance with NPDES requirements would reduce short -term construction-related impacts to water quality to a less-than-significant level.

Upon Project completion, operation of the terminal woul d be similar to existing conditions. Water generated during tank dewatering for the new tanks as part of normal tank operations would be initially treated at the on-site wastewater treatment storage tanks and then discharged to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) sanitary sewer system in compliance with the facility’s LACSD permit. The proposed Project would remain in compliance with existing water quality standards. Operational activities would not substantially change such that discharged water or waste would degrade groundwater quality.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
NO IMPACT. Temporary dewatering during construction would generate small volumes of effectively seawater and would not substantially deplete fresh groundwater suppli es or interfere with existing groundwater recharge. The Project site is not currently used for groundwater recharge. Additionally, the

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-37
proposed Project would not affect any fresh groundwater supplies, drinking water supplies, or aquifers.

No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Soil disturbance would temporarily occur during Project construction due to excavation for the tank foundations . Disturbed soils may be susceptible to erosion from wind and rain, but construction would occur within the existing containment walls, which would prevent stormwater from transporting loose sediment off site.

The proposed P roject would be subject to compliance with the requirements outlined in the NPDES Stormwater Construction General Permit for construction activities; refer to Section 4.10(a) for permit requirements and BMPs. Compliance with the NPDES requirements, including preparation of a Construction SWPPP, would reduce the volume of sediment in discharged runoff from the site during construction. Implementation of BMPs, such as using perimeter BMPs, would reduce the potential for sediment and stormwater runoff containing pollutants from entering the harbor. Therefore, the proposed Project would not substantially alter the on-site existing drainage pattern through erosion or siltation.

The operation of the proposed Project would not have the potential to result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off-site. Upon completion of construction activities, the terminal would continue to operate similar to existing conditions. The proposed tank construction and installation would not substantially alter the existing topography or drainage patterns on-site. The ground surface would remain covered in pervious gravel to prevent pooling and flooding of water. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
L
ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing topography or drainage patterns on- or off-site. The storage tank area, which encompasses the majority of the Project site, is generally flat and would remain unpaved and covered with gravel that is underlain by riprap and manmade fill. Stormwater would continue to infiltrate the unpaved area and flooding would not occur due to the pervious nature of the gravel. The proposed Project would not alter the site in a way that would substantially increase the amount of surface runoff that could result in flooding on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. As discussed in Section 4.10(c)(i) and 4.10 (c)(ii), proposed construction and operation would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the Project site. The pervious gravel

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-38
surface of the Project site would remain after completion of construction activities and would prevent flooding. The on-site drainage patterns would remain similar to existing conditions, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. According to the Federal Emergency Management Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the Project area, the entire Project site is located within Special Flood Hazard Area Zone AE, which presents a one percent annual chance of flooding (i.e., 100 -year flood zone) (FEMA, 2008) . The tank storage area is surrounded by a containment wall that varies between approximately 12.5 to 13 feet in height. The wall thickness tapers from approximately 1.5 feet wide at the base t o 1 foot wide at the top.

The wall includes a 12- to 12.5-foot-wide footing that is buried to a depth that runs from 1.5 feet below - grade at the outer edges of the wall to a depth of approximately 3 feet towards the center of the facility.

The wall and its footing make a large “L” shape that is continuous around the site which prevents the wall from falling over in the event of a spill.approximately 8-foot wide, 6-foot deep containment walls that are supported by 180 50-foot deep foundations that extend und erground. The containment walls are designed to withstand a 100 -year storm event. The two proposed tanks would be installed within these containment walls , which would provide the same level of protection against floods as they do under existing conditions. The Project site does not have a flood control system in place; however, air driven pumps may be used to divert water over the containment wall during a flood event. Therefore, although the proposed Project would place structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area, the proposed tanks would not alter the existing drainage pattern on-site and flood flows would not be impeded or redirected because they would be installed within the existing containment walls. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. As stated above in Section 4.10(c)(iv), the Project site is located within the 100-year flood hazard area. To consider the effects of future sea level rise in combination with a 100-year storm event, the POLB completed a Climate Adaptation and Coastal Resi liency Plan (CRP) in 2016.

According to the CRP, the Project site may experience temporary inundation under a scenario of 36-inch sea level rise plus a 100-year storm surge (POLB, 2016). This 36-inch sea level rise scenario was identified in the CRP as a suitable scenario for future planning as it would be representative of a high-end sea level rise projection for the year 2070, and the most likely sea level rise projection for the year 2100. According to the CRP’s Port Coastal Vulnerability Zone Map (CRP Figure ES-5), the Project site would not be subject to permanent inundation from projected sea level rise and would only be subject to temporary inundation of up to two feet with the combination of sea level rise and a 100-year storm surge. Tthe proposed tanks would be constructed and installed within existing containment walls that are designed to withstand a 100-year storm event. The containment walls would continue to offer the same level of adequate protection for the proposed tanks as they do for the existing tanks. As stated above Although a flood control system is not in place at the Project site; however, air driven pumps wouldmay be used to divert water over the containment wall during a flood event. Impacts would be less than significant in regard to flood hazards.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-39
A tsunami is a large wave produced by an undersea disturbance such as an earthquake or landslide. The Project site i s adjacent to Channel 2 of the Cerritos Channel to the north. According to the California Geological Survey’s Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Long Beach Quadrangle, the Project site is located within a tsunami inundation area (CGS, 2009). Due to the Project’s location adjacent to the ocean, the Project site is vulnerable to tsunamis generated off the coast of California. A In 2007, Moffatt & Nichol prepared the Tsunami Hazard Assessment for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach Final Report was conducted in 2007 by Moffat and Nicol which analyzes such hazards using a tsunami hazard assessment model developed specifically for the POLB and Port of Long Beach area. to assess the potential local sources of tsunamis and their potential impacts to the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. This study evaluated several tsunami scenarios and concluded determined that impacts from a tsunami would be equal to or more severe than those from a seiche (Moffatt & Nichol, 2007), and that. The tsunami maximum water levels did not exceed deck elevations in berths in the POLB including Pier C (Moffatt & Nichol, 2007). The Report concluded that large earthquakes (e.g., magnitude ~7.5) are very infrequent and have not occurred in the offshore area of Cali fornia within historical times and The report determined that a large and locally generated tsunami would not likely occur more than once every 10,000 years, resulting in limited inundation (Moffatt & Nichol, 2007). Furthermore, not every large earthquake is expected to generate a tsunami based on historical occurrences of tsunami and s eismic activity worldwide (Moffatt & Nichol, 2007).

The Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory modeled 322 possible earthquake scenarios.

The report determined that a magnitude 9.3 earthquake could generate a tsunami with potentially substantial impact on the POLB (i.e., worst case scenario tsunami) (Uslu et al., 2010). Large tsunamis have historically caused heavy damage to waterfronts, vessels, moorings, piers, and docks (Uslu et al., 2010).

No vessels or water-side activities are associated with existing or proposed operation of the World Oil Terminal, nor would they be associated with construction of the proposed Project. Additionally, the proposed Project is located within an inner channel that is considerably more inland than the southern portions of the Port. If a tsunami were to occur, the outermost portions of the coast and Port would be impacted first. Waves generated by a tsunami are likely to dissipate and weaken as they travel inland through the Port’s channels.

The new tanks would be on stable foundations and would not be subject to substantial damage from inundation. The proposed Project would not change any land uses, and Project operations wou ld be similar to existing operations. The existing 12.5- to 13-foot-high containment walls, behind which the new tanks would be placed, would provide the same level of protection to the new tanks as they do for the existing tanks in the event of a tsunami. Thus, construction and installation of the new tanks would not exacerbate existing potential for inundation by tsunami beyond existing conditions nor would it risk release of pollutants should inundation occur. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, harbor, or lake. The Project site is adjacent to Channel 2, which is semi-enclosed to the east. As discussed previously, the proposed tanks would be constructed within protective 12.5- to 13-foot-high containment walls. During a seiche event, the containment walls would provide the same level of protection to the new tanks as they d o for the existing tanks. Additionally, measures to minimize impacts from seiches or

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-40
tsunamis are currently in place at the POLB. Project construction would not increase the risk of a release of pollutants due to project inundation; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Basin Plan) establishes water quality standards for ground and surface waters within the Los Angeles region, which includes the City of Long Beach, and is the basis for the Los Angeles RWQCB’s regulatory programs.

The 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act requires local public agencies and groundwater sustainability agencies in high- and medium- priority basins to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans or prepare an alternative to a groundwater sustainability plan (DWR, 2014). The City is located within the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles – West Coast groundwater basin, which is designated as a Very Low priority basin (DWR, 2020). Therefore, no groundwater sustainability plan has been established for this basin. However, the Water Replenishment District of Southern California developed the Groundwater Basins Master Plan, which identifies projects and programs to enhance basin replenishment, increase reliability of gro undwater resources, and improve and protect groundwater quality in the Los Angeles West Coast and Central groundwater basins (WRD, 2016).

The proposed Project would construct and install two new storage tanks. No new land uses are proposed that would involve increased demand for groundwater supplies. Project construction and operation would comply with NPDES program requirements established by the Los Angeles RWQCB. As such, the proposed Project would be completed in accordance with a Construction SWPPP and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Los Angeles RWQCB’s Basin Plan or Water Replenishment District of Southern California’s Groundwater Basins Master Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-41

4.11 Land Use and Planning

LAND USE PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? NO IMPACT. The Project site is in POLB’s Northeast Harbor Planning District (District 2 ) in a predominantly industrial area and is designated as a Regional-Serving Facility (POLB, 1990). The Project area is bounded by the Long Beach Harbor Channel 2 and Pier B to the north, the Matson Auto and Oversized Cargo Yard and Long Beach Freeway (I-710) to the east, Pier C Street to the south, and SSA/Matson Container Yard to the west. Other industrial and commercial uses exist in the vicinity. The proposed construction and operation activities would occur within the existing terminal and would not interfere with surrounding uses. All surrounding land and water -based uses would continue operations. There are no residential areas, uses, or communities within the Project site or in the POLB; therefore, the proposed Project would not physically divide any established community. No impact would occur as a result of the proposed Project.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
N
O IMPACT. The Long Beach General Plan designates the PlaceType of the Project site and its surrounding areas as RSF, Regional Serving Facility (City of Long Beach, 20 19). The Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element defines the Regional Serving Facility PlaceType as a flexible zoning type that includes “facilities, businesses, and operations that not only serve the City of Long Beach, but also the region and parts of the nation.” According to Table LU-6: PlaceTypes and Zoning District s Consistency Matrix in the City of Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element, this PlaceType is consistent with Light, Medium, General, and Port- related Industrial Zoning Districts (City of Long Beach, 2019). The proposed Project is considered to be a Regional Serving Facility because operations would support regional and national transport and energy needs through distribution of petroleum products. No amendment to the General Plan would be required as part of the proposed Project; thus, the Project would be consistent with the General Plan PlaceType zoning designation and no conflict would occur.

The City of Long Beach Zoning and Land Use Map shows the Project site located within the IP, Port-Related Industrial District zone (City of Long Beach, 2020a). Land uses designated as IP are established to preserve and enhance areas for maritime industry and marine resources. Uses in this district are primarily port - related or water dependent but may include water-oriented commercial and recreational facilities (City of Long Beach, 1995) . Although the Project is not water dependent, it is consistent with the industri al

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-42
nature of surrounding activities in the same land use designation and would be consistent with the existing operations at the existing World Oil Terminal.

The Port Master Plan further identifies land uses specific to the POLB. The Port Master Plan is also a requirement of the California Coastal Act (CCA), to which POLB is subject (Chapter 8, Section 30711(a)).

The Project site is located within District 2 and zoned “MP – Port Manufacturing.” Permitted uses within District 2 and MP zones include primary port facilities, port -related uses, hazardous cargo facilities, ancillary port facilities, oil production, and navigation (POLB, 1990) . The proposed Project would not conflict with the site’s Port Master Plan zoning. Two new s torage tanks, which would provide additional storage of crude oil for transport and refining, would be added to an existing site that contains existing tanks with similar uses. Operation of the proposed storage tanks would be a permitted use according to the Port Master Plan. Furthermore, the proposed Project would increase the efficiency of terminal operations by allowing World Oil to lease existing tanks to third -party vendors. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable land use and zoning and would be consistent with one of the POLB’s goals of maximizing the efficiency of POLB activities.

The Project site is located within the Coastal Zone, which requires compliance with the CCA as administered by the California Coastal Commissi on (CCC). The CCC certified the Port Master Plan, as amended in 1990, which ensures that activities guided by the Port Master Plan would also be consistent with the policies of the CCA. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with the CCA, as the new tanks are consistent with the existing World Oil Terminal and future operation would remain similar to current operations.

The proposed Project would comply with all existing land use plans, policies, and regulations and would not cause any significant impact on the environment due to any conflicts. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-43

4.12 Mineral Resources

MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
NO IMPACT. The Project site is in a highly urbanized and industrial area and is surrounded predominantly by industrial land uses. According to the California Geological Survey San Gabriel Valley P -C Region Showing MRZ-2 Areas and Active Mine Operations map, the Project site is not within a Mineral Resource Zone where geologic data indicate the presence of significant mineral resources (CGS, 2010). Additionally, the existing Project site is not utilized for mineral resource extraction. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on the availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? N
O IMPACT. According to the California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division Well Finder map, the Project site is within the Wilmington Oil Field and contains several oil wells. However, all on-site oil wells are plugged and inactive (DOC, 2020). The proposed Project would not increase the rates of existing oil extraction or affect production and abandonment plans for any oil wells within the Project area. As such, the proposed Project would neither result in a land use conflict with the existing oil extraction nor would it preclude future oil extraction on underlying deposits. No impact on the availability of a locally important mineral resources would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-44

4.13 Noise
NOISE
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
Existing Conditions
Community Noise. To describe environmental noise and to assess project impacts on areas that are sen - sitive to community noise, a measurement scale that simulates human perception is used. The A-weighted scale of frequency sensitivity accounts for the sensitivity of the human ear, which is less sensitive to low frequencies, and correlates well with human perceptions of the annoying aspects of noise. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) is cited in most noise criteria. Decibels are logarithmic units that can be used to con- veniently compare wide ranges of sound intensities. Therefore, the cumulative noise lev el from two or more sources will combine logarithmically, rather than linearly (i.e., simple addition). For example, if two identical noise sources produce a noise level of 50 dBA each, the combined noise level would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA.

Community noise levels can be highly variable from day to day as well as between day and night. For simplicity, sound levels are usually best represented by an equivalent level over a given time period (Leq) or by an average level occurring over a 24-hour day-night period (Ldn). The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is a single value (in dBA) for any desired duration, which includes all of the time-varying sound energy in the measurement period, usually one hour. The Ldn, or day -night average sound level, is equal to the 24-hour A -weighted equivalent sound level with a 10 -decibel penalty applied to nighttime sounds occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Community Noise Equivalent Level is another metric that is the average equivalent A- weighted sound level during a 24 -hour day, obtained after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the night from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. To easily estimate the day-night level caused by any noise source emitting steadily and continuously over 24-hours, the Ldn is 6.4 dBA higher than the source’s Leq. For example, if the expected continuous noise level from equipment is 50.0 dBA Leq for every hour, the day-night noise level would be 56.4 dBA Ldn.

Community noise levels are usually closely related to the intensity of human activity. Noise levels are generally considered low when below 45 dBA, moderate in the 45 to 60 dBA range, and high above 60 dBA. In wilderness areas, the Ldn noise levels can be below 35 dBA. In small towns or wooded and lightly used residential areas, the Ldn is more likely to be around 50 or 60 dBA. Levels around 75 dBA are more

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-45
common in busy urban areas, and levels up to 85 dBA occur near major freeways and airports. Although people often accept the higher levels associated with very noisy urban residential and residential- commercial zones, they nevertheless are considered adverse to public health.

Surrounding land uses dictate what noise levels would be considered acceptable or unacceptable. Lower levels are expected in rural or suburban areas than what would be expected for commercial or industrial zones. Nighttime ambient levels in urban environments are about seven decibels lower than the corre - sponding daytime levels. In rural areas away from roads and other human activity, the day -to-night difference can be considerably less. Areas with full- time human occupation and residency are often con - sidered incompatible with substantial nighttime noise because of the likelihood of disrupting sleep. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can result in the onset of sleep interference. At 70 dBA, sleep inter ference effects become considerable (USEPA, 1974).

It is widely accepted that a difference of more than 3 dBA is a perceptible change in environmental noise, while a 5 dBA difference is readily perceptible. An increase of 10 dBA is perceived as being twice as loud and a decrease of 10 dBA is perceived as being half as loud. (Caltrans, 2013a – Table 2-10) Geometric Spreading. Sound from a single source (i.e., a “point” source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or drops off) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance (Caltrans, 2013a). Highway noise is not a single stationary point source of sound. The movement of vehicles on a highway makes the source of the sound appear to emanate from a line (i.e., a “line” source) rather than from a point. This results in cylindrical spreading rather than the spherical spreading resulting from a point source. The attenuation from a line source is 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans, 2013a).

Shielding by Natural or Human -made Features. A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by this shielding depends on the size of the object, proximity to the noise source and receiver, surface weight, solidity, and the frequency content of the noise source. Natural terrain features (such as hills and dense woods) and human -made features (such as buildings and walls) can substantially reduce noise levels. Walls are often constructed between a source and a receiver specifically to reduce noise. A barrier that breaks the line of sight between a source and a receiver will typically result in at least 5 dB of noise reduction. A higher barrier may provide as much as 20 dB of noise reduction.

Noise Environment in the Project Area. The proposed Project would be located inside World Oil Corporation’s existing petroleum bulk station and terminal on Pier C within POLB Planning District 2 (Northeast Harbor). This is an industrial area bounded by Cerritos Channel and Pier B to the north, the Long Beach Freeway (I -710) to the east, Inner Harbor Channel to the south, and SSA/Matson Container Terminal to the west. It is not located directly adjacent to noise -sensitive receptors, such as residential areas or schools.

Existing noise sources in the Project area include traffic along the I-710, Pier C Street, Pico Avenue, and Pier B Street, as well as noise associated with POLB operations, including container loading and operations at the adjacent SSA/Matson Container Terminal.

Noise Sensitive Areas. For the purposes of noise impact analysis, the area of influence includes sensitive noise receptors closest to the Project site. These include two schools, Edison Elementary School (approximately just over 0.5 mile or approximately 2,89030 feet east of the Project site/staging area) and Cesar Chavez Elementary School ( approximately 0.6 mile or 3,250 feet east of the Project site/staging

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-46
area), and the closest resident on Chester Place ( approximately 0.5 mile or 2,610 feet east of Project site/staging area).

A noise survey was conducted on March 3, 2020 to quantify ambient noise levels at the proposed Project site, as well as at the closest sensitive receptors to the site, as described in Table 4.13-1 and illustrated in Figure 4.13-1. These short-term measurements were taken with a 3M Sound Examiner SE-402 Sound Level Meter (Type 2). The meter was calibrated with a Quest Technologies Model QC-10 Calibrator immediately prior to conducting the noise survey.

Table 4.13-1. Ambient Noise Levels Representative of the Project Area ID Location Time & Duration Leq Lmax Lmin Noted Sources 1 World Oil Tank Farm
immediately west of
existing skimmer
2:10 pm
15 minutes

65.6 83.6 49.9 Matson operations, birds,
trucks, metal clanking,
wind
2 Cesar Chavez Elementary
School (730 W 3rd Street,
Long Beach)
3:17 pm
14 minutes 34
seconds

60.5 77.8 54.2 710 Freeway, vehicles,
children playing, radio
music from vehicles
3 Edison Elementary School
(625 Maine Avenue, Long
Beach). At property line
near footbridge adjacent to
W 6th Street.
3:50 pm
15 minutes

72.8 85.4 49.8 Vehicles and motorcycle
from W 6th Street
4 911 W Chester Place 4:22 pm
15 minutes

52.7 64.0 47.2 Birds, freeway, vehicles,
distant train
Source: Measurements performed by Stephanie Tang of Aspen Environmental Group on March 3, 2020.

Notes:
1 – Weather conditions were clear, sunny (79°F), 6% humidity, with light 7mile per hour northerly winds (wunderground.com).

World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021 4-47
Fundamentals of Vibration. Vibration is a phenomenon related to noise, with common man -made sources being trains, large vehicles on rough roads, and construction activities such as blasting, pile - driving, and operating heavy earth -moving equipment. Vibration is defined as the mecha nical motion of earth or ground, building, or other type of structure, induced by the operation of any mechanical device or equipment located upon or affixed thereto. Vibration generally results in an oscillatory motion in terms of the displacement, veloci ty, or acceleration of the ground or structure(s) that causes a normal person to be aware of the vibration by means such as, but not limited to, sensation by touch or visual observation of moving objects.