Long Beach City Council
January 18, 2022

EARTHJUSTICE

COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR

EAST YARD COMMUNITIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
SIERRA CLUB – ANGELES CHAPTER

VIA: ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY

November 11, 2021
Honorable Members of the City Council
c/o Monique De La Garza, City Clerk
City of Long Beach, California
333 West Ocean Blvd., Lobby Level
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 570-6101
[email protected]

RE: Appeal of Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners’ Approval of World Oil Tank Installation Project (HD-21-537)

Dear Members of the Long Beach City Council:

The undersigned organizations (“the Coalition”) write to appeal the approval of the World Oil Tank Installation Project (“Project”) by the Port of Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners (“Commission”).1 On October 28, 2021, the Commission approved this Project based on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (“IS/ND”)— a cursory review of potential environmental and public health impacts from small projects—prepared by the Port of Long Beach (“Port”) under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The Coalition submitted comments, including expert analysis, supporting the need for a full environmental impact report (“EIR”) and outlining serious problems with the Port’s review of potential environmental impacts in the IS/ND:2
• The IS/ND failed to account for crucial studies showing that cancer-causing volatile organic compound (“VOC”) emissions from oil storage tanks are dangerously underestimated.
• The IS/ND examined the Project’s impacts in a vacuum, without considering the existing impacts from the World Oil terminal, connected refineries, and other storage tanks in the region.

1 This appeal is authorized by Long Beach, California, Municipal Code § 21.21.507. 2 APPX_000001-000005, Coalition’s Oct. 27, 2021, Public Comments; APPX_000381-000405, Coalition’s Nov. 20, 2020, Public Comments. (Cites to “APPX” refer to the Bates-stamped Appendices filed concurrently with this appeal.)
2 • The California Coastal Commission (“CCC”) found the IS/ND failed to account for the impacts of climate change on storm and flooding risks, and the Port did not properly consult with CCC to resolve these problems. • The IS/ND failed to properly address expert comments on risks of serious disasters, including earthquakes, fires, and tsunamis that threaten Port infrastructure and surrounding communities.
• The Project would produce thousands of barrels of hazardous sludge, but the IS/ND did not disclose whether the disposal facility in the region had capacity to process the additional waste or examine alternative sites.

The Project would involve the construction of two large, 25,000-barrel crude oil storage tanks at the Port, and risks harming overburdened communities already facing severe pollution from fossil fuel infrastructure. The IS/ND’s review of this Project understates or ignores serious risks, depriving community members of transparency into potential impacts and denying the Commission necessary information. Proper environmental review under CEQA is crucial to ensure that affected communities and decisionmakers are adequately informed about a project’s impacts.

We respectfully ask the City Council to require the Port to correct its flawed environmental review by producing an EIR that considers alternatives and mitigation measures for the Project. We also request that the City Council require that the Project not be considered for approval until crucial rulemaking on storage tank emissions from the South Coast Air Management District (“SCAQMD”) is finalized in March 2022.

I. Project Background: Proposed Infrastructure That Would Exacerbate Urgent Environmental and Public Health Problems.

The Project applicant, Ribost Terminal LLC (d.b.a. “World Oil”), proposes to construct two large, 25,000-barrel crude oil storage tanks at the Port’s World Oil Terminal, adding storage capacity to the terminal’s already-substantial storage capacity of 502,000 barrels. The terminal currently has seven large petroleum storage tanks, which send and receive petroleum products to and from multiple nearby refineries through pipelines and by truck.

World Oil and the Port’s representation of this Project was fundamentally misleading to the public and the Commission. At the public hearing before the Commission, World Oil portrayed itself merely as a recycling operation that “does not manufacture any finished fuels.”3 World Oil also referred to its South Gate refinery as an “asphalt plant,” obfuscating that its refinery in South Gate produces

3 Port of Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners, Regular Meeting of October 28, 2021, at 33:14- 34:51, https://polb.granicus.com/player/clip/7429?view_id=77&redirect=true; APPX_000020. 3 highly polluting marine diesel fuel and various other distillates.4 The Port’s emphasis on World Oil’s recycling operations deflected from the Project’s explicit intention to allow the lease of two “larger existing tanks” to oil refineries in Carson and Long Beach run by Marathon Petroleum and Glencore.5 The IS/ND did not specify which tanks will be leased, but the Project will allow between 86,000 to 188,000 barrels of additional storage capacity to become available for use by the Marathon and Glencore oil refineries.6
As illustrated in Figure A below, the Project would be sited near residential areas and schools that already bear an extreme and disproportionate burden of pollution from the Port complex.7 The Project would have a variety of harmful environmental impacts, including increased emissions of cancer-causing air pollutants, increased risks of major disasters, and would create many thousands of barrels of hazardous sludge being transported through communities.8

4 Port of Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners, supra note 3, at 33:12-33:22; APPX_000104; APPX_000221.
5 APPX_000025; APPX_000029.
6 APPX_000024 (The smallest existing tanks at the refinery each have a capacity of “approximately 43,000 [barrels].”).
7 APPX_000381 citing Taylor Thomas, Port of Long Beach Grant Program – A Lesson in Improving Funding for EJ Projects, in Environmental Justice Working Group Case Studies: Appendix To The Recommendations For The California State Lands Commission Environmental Justice Policy Update 9 (2018), https://www.slc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/EJWG-Case-Studies-FINAL.pdf. 8 APPX_000046; APPX_000057; APPX_000064; APPX_000072.

Figure A: Google Maps Image Showing Proximity of Project Site to Schools

4 On November 20, 2020, the Coalition provided written comments to the Port highlighting problems with the IS/ND’s analysis. Subsequently, on October 27, 2021, the Coalition provided comments to the Commission underlining the continuing problems with the IS/ND that the Port’s response to comments failed to adequately address.9 Several Coalition representatives and community members also provided oral comments during the Commission’s October 28, 2021, public hearing on the Project. Despite these efforts, the Commission followed Port staff’s recommendations and approved the IS/ND.

II. The Port’s Analysis Failed to Properly Examine the Project’s Various Environmental Impacts
a. The IS/ND Ignored Crucial Science on Storage Tank Emissions, and SCAQMD’s Pending Regulatory Updates to Control Storage Tank Emissions that Apply to the Project.

The Project’s storage tanks would emit fugitive VOCs, including cancer-causing benzene, as part of their everyday operation. Under the Port’s estimates, the Project would release over 200,000 pounds of VOCs over its operational lifetime of at least fifty years.10 These emissions would threaten “sensitive receptors” particularly vulnerable to air pollution, including children in several elementary schools located approximately half a mile from the Project.11
Recent studies sponsored by SCAQMD (the “FluxSense study”) showed that VOC emissions at storage tanks are severely underestimated.12 The study found that actual VOC emissions were 8.6 times greater on average than estimations based on a common emission model.13 The study also found that actual emissions of cancer- causing benzene, a type of VOC, were 34 times higher than estimated.14 Expert comments provided by Julia May, Senior Scientist at Communities for a Better Environment, showed the results of the FluxSense study indicated this Project’s VOC emissions may be well above the significance threshold set by SCAQMD.15

9 The coalition that submitted comments to the Harbor Commission on October 27, 2021, consisted of Earthjustice, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, the San Pedro & Peninsula Homeowners Coalition, and the Sierra Club Angeles Chapter. 10 APPX_000030 (“Tank life is estimated to be greater than 50 years.”); APPX_000044, tbl.4.3-2 (The Port estimated Project VOC emissions to be 10.959 pounds per day.). 11 APPX_000066.
12 APPX_000386 citing Johan Mellqvist, et al., FluxSense Inc., Emission Measurements of VOCs, NO2 and SO2 from the Refineries in the South Coast Air Basin Using Solar Occultation Flux and Other Optical Remote Sensing Methods 3 (Final Report Apr. 11, 2017), https://earthjustice.sharefile.com/d-s5312b425ff2c44f2a0c0415cd0f45d4a. 13 APPX_000413.
14 APPX_000413.
15 APPX_000417.
5 Julia May’s comments also described numerous other studies discussing how VOC emissions from oil storage tanks are often egregiously underestimated.16 The Port failed to provide an adequate response to these expert comments that show a severe risk of underestimating harmful VOC emissions. Instead, the Port copied a comment from 2020 by SCAQMD regarding the FluxSense study, referencing existing rules relating to the control of VOCs from storage tanks.17 The Port failed to disclose, however, that SCAQMD has recognized that its current regime for controlling storage tank VOC emissions is inadequate. The agency is currently undergoing a rulemaking to update its storage tank emissions rule (Rule 1178) by March 2022.18 Furthermore, the Port provided no response to multiple other studies discussed in detail in the Coalition’s technical comments, which reveal the grave risks of underestimating VOC emissions from oil storage tanks.19 The IS/ND’s failure to address these risks is made more disturbing by the Project’s proximity to nearby elementary schools and communities already overburdened by VOC pollution. The Port assumes the general significance threshold for VOCs is a suitable tool to conclude that localized VOC impacts would be “less than significant.”20 The IS/ND provided a cancer-risk analysis but failed to address the severe underestimation of cancer-causing VOCs found in the scientific studies discussed above. Thus, the conclusion that the Project’s 200,000 pounds of lifetime VOC emissions could not have any significant impact on nearby communities is based on flawed analysis and incomplete information.

Given the severe risk that VOC emissions pose to nearby communities and sensitive receptors, the Project should use a conservative approach that assumes the worst- case scenario that VOC emissions might be higher than expected and consider appropriate mitigation measures under an EIR. Moreover, the Port should consider the updated scientific understanding reflected in SCAQMD’s Rule 1178 updates for the construction, operation, and maintenance of storage tanks. Consequently, the City Council should require this Project to be held in abeyance until that critical rulemaking is concluded in March 2022. This approach will enable the Port to properly understand and mitigate the impacts of these emissions, rather than analyzing the Project with models that fail to reflect the best available science.

16 APPX_000414-000418.
17 APPX_000213-000215.
18 APPX_000003-000004 citing SCAQMD, Rule and Control Measure Forecast 2021-2022 Master Calendar (Oct. 1, 2021), http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing- Board/2021/2021-oct1-013.pdf?sfvrsn=2. (See Rule 1178. Also note Rule 1173, estimated for completion in the 4th Quarter of 2022.).
19 APPX_000418.
20 APPX_000046.
6 b. The Port’s Analysis Ignored Key Cumulative Impacts of Emissions at the World Oil Terminal, Connected Refineries, and Nearby Storage Tanks.

The IS/ND did not analyze the Project’s contributions to existing infrastructure to properly assess cumulative impacts as required by CEQA. Cumulative impacts analysis is crucial under CEQA because “the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum.”21 However, the Port did just that by examining the Project’s impacts in isolation from closely related facilities that add to the cumulative impact ultimately felt by nearby communities.

First, the Port ignored the impacts of the existing infrastructure at the World Oil Terminal. The Project would increase the World Oil Terminal’s storage capacity by 50,000 barrels and would increase the number of terminal tanks from seven to nine.

Yet, the IS/ND did not examine the Project’s impacts in the context of this existing infrastructure, leaving the public to speculate about the significance of the total emissions from the World Oil Terminal.

Second, the Port ignored impacts from the closely related refinery operations facilitated by the Project. The World Oil Terminal serves nearby refineries through pipeline connections and an average of seven hundred truck trips per month.22 The Project is planned to allow World Oil to lease greater amounts of storage capacity to serve the Marathon and Glencore refineries in Carson and Long Beach.23 CEQA requires the Port to provide a “comprehensive cumulative impacts evaluation,” but the Port failed to examine the impacts of refining activities the Project would enable.24
Finally, the Port failed to examine how this Project would add to the cumulative impacts from multiple nearby storage tanks, including those that have been recently approved. In the past ten years alone, thirty-one new storage tanks have been approved for construction in the region.25 Currently, there are over 1,100 storage tanks in the region.26 Without any investigation into the impacts of those tanks, the public and the Commission were left without the necessary information to understand how the Project would add to the cumulative impacts already caused

21 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1214–15 (2004).
22 APPX_000029.
23 APPX_000029.
24 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1214 (2004). 25 APPX_000220; APPX_000500-000527.
26 APPX_000002 citing SCAQMD, Working Group Meeting 2 for Proposed Amendment to Rule 1178, at 18 (July 15, 2021), http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed- Rules/1178/par1178-wgm2_final.pdf?sfvrsn=12.
7 by these closely related facilities. Table B below demonstrates the magnitude of existing storage tank infrastructure this Project would be adding to at a time when we need to drastically reduce our dependence on petroleum.27 Table B: SCAQMD Breakdown of Stationary Tanks by Size
Tank Size
Category (gal)
# Tanks Total Gallons
Stored
Average Tank
Capacity (gal)
≤50000 70 3 million 43,000
>50,000 to 150,000 43 4 million 93,000
>150,000 to 1
million
217 100 million 460,000
>1 million 778 3 billion 3.9 million

Rather than consult with and obtain data from SCAQMD on storage tanks and related emissions throughout the region, the Port responded to Coalition comments by improperly shifting the burden onto the public to investigate the cumulative impacts of existing storage tank infrastructure, noting that the Coalition did not “identify tank sizes . . . [or] provide the number of retired storage tanks for this same period.”28 As the lead agency responsible for reviewing this Project, the Port must properly investigate the Project’s contributions to cumulative impacts in the context of closely related infrastructure.29 The Port cannot ignore important information showing potential cumulative impacts by simply dismissing the analysis of public comments. Moreover, the Port presents misleading information to assert that cumulative storage tank emissions are not increasing. The Port compares 2010 emissions to 2020 emissions to assert that emissions from Los Angeles County’s entire “petroleum refining and marketing sector have declined.”30 This data and analysis do not show emissions changes from storage tanks and does not account for the impacts the COVID-19 global pandemic had on data for emissions in 2020.
c. The Port did not Adequately Consult with the California Coastal Commission, Leaving Unresolved Questions on Storm and Flood Risks.

The Port failed to adequately consult with the necessary agencies as required by CEQA.31 The California Coastal Commission (“CCC”) provided comments to the Port on November 20, 2020, noting concerns that the IS/ND failed to show the project would “withstand” storm events and flooding “exacerbated by sea level

27 Id.
28 APPX_000220.
29 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15355(b).
30 APPX_000220.
31 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21080.3(a).
8 rise.”32 On October 26, 2021,33 CCC submitted additional comments criticizing the Port’s analysis:34
There is no evidence provided in the IS/ND that suggests the project is located and designed in a way that will avoid adverse impacts on the environment and port -adjacent communities under conditions where sea and groundwater levels are higher and storm events are more frequent and severe.

CCC found that the Port’s analysis failed to sufficiently account for the dangers posed by flooding and storms because it “did not take climate change into consideration.”35 These comments note a persistent and unresolved problem with the Port’s analysis demonstrating a failure to properly consult with CCC. In fact, CCC stated its comments were “preliminary in nature” and that “[m]ore specific comments may be appropriate as the project develops.”36 These statements make clear that the Port did not fully consult with CCC in developing the IS/ND. Further consultation with CCC is necessary serve the public’s interest in providing a complete environmental review of the Project.

Furthermore, CEQA requires an EIR to be prepared for a project where “there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts” on the significance of a project’s impacts.37 As CCC has expertise in storm and flooding risks on coastal facilities, the City Council should require the Port to fully consult with CCC and prepare an EIR that addresses the storm and flooding risks noted above. d. The Port did not Properly Address Risks of Disasters from Earthquakes, Fires, and Tsunamis.

The Project creates increased risks of severe disasters that are not adequately addressed in the IS/ND. The Coalition provided expert scientific comments showing the Project’s tanks would face significant risks from earthquakes and tsunamis, which could cause severe damage through oil spills and fires.38 The IS/ND’s analysis of earthquake risks was seriously flawed by understating the risks of oil spills. The IS/ND notes that the World Oil terminal’s containment wall was designed to contain 90,000 barrels.39 However, the terminal’s existing capacity is 502,000 barrels, and this Project would add 50,000 barrels to that capacity. The

32 APPX_000124.
33 APPX_000124; APPX_000568-000569.
34 APPX_000568.
35 APPX_000568.
36 APPX_000569.
37 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(g).
38 APPX_000422-000432.
39 APPX_000110.
9 IS/ND fails to consider whether damage to several tanks could overwhelm the existing containment wall, and what the environmental impacts of such a disaster would be. The IS/ND does not consider whether further mitigation, such as a secondary containment system, would be necessary to provide sufficient protection to Port waters and nearby communities.

The Coalition provided detailed comments showing that oil storage tank fires pose a substantial risk to nearby facilities and residents.40 These comments described how fires at oil storage tanks, such as the NuStar Energy fire in San Francisco, have spread black smoke and dangerous particulate matter for many miles.41 However, the IS/ND failed to examine what impacts a fire at the Project site would have on surrounding communities. The Port asserted without evidence that “[a]ny fire would be isolated at the Port,” apparently ignoring that well-documented storage tank fires have impacted residents many miles away.42
Coalition comments also highlighted studies from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showing tsunamis “pose considerably more danger to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach than previously thought.”43 The Coalition also shared Figure C below, a map from the California Department of Conservation showing the Project site is well within the Long Beach Tsunami Inundation Area.44

The Port dismissed these concerns by noting the presence of a containment wall at the World Oil terminal.45 However, as noted above, CCC stated the IS/ND did not

40 APPX_000426-000432.
41 APPX_000428-000432.
42 APPX_000223; APPX_000428-000432.
43 APPX_000423.
44 APPX_000424.
45 APPX_000224.

Figure C: California Dept. of Conservation, Los Angeles County Tsunami Inundation Maps, Long Beach Quadrangle

10 properly consider the effects of climate change and sea level rise on disaster risks.

The Port’s unresolved disagreement with those experts leaves the public to wonder what actual disaster risks this Project would pose and requires the preparation of an EIR.
e. The Port Failed to Adequately Examine the Risk Posed by Thousands of Barrels of Hazardous Sludge that the Project Would Produce.

The Project would produce at least 15,000 barrels of hazardous tank sludge over its operational lifetime of fifty years or greater, with the sludge being removed from tanks every ten years.46 The Port dismissed the Coalition’s concerns that this substantial amount of hazardous waste may have significant environmental impacts.47 The Port noted that the sludge produced would use only 4.5 percent of the treatment capacity at the waste facility located in Vernon.48 However, the IS/ND failed to disclose the current treatment load at the Vernon facility. Nor did the IS/ND describe how the waste would be handled if the Vernon facility had insufficient capacity to accept thousands of barrels of additional waste. The communities that would be impacted by improper treatment or disposal of hazardous tank sludge deserve greater transparency and assurance that the treatment of hazardous sludge has been carefully examined. ***
The Port’s IS/ND failed to address substantial evidence provided by the Coalition and other commenters that the Project would have significant environmental impacts. CEQA requires the Port to prepare a full EIR when there is any “fair argument” that the Project may have significant environmental impacts, including localized and cumulative impacts.49 This Project would produce over 200,000 pounds of lifetime VOC emissions in a region already overburdened by such pollutants. The Project would produce at least 15,000 barrels of hazardous sludge and would significantly expand capacity to facilitate nearby oil refinery operations.

The record before the City Council demonstrates far more than a “fair argument” that this Project would have sufficient environmental impacts justifying a more careful and comprehensive analysis.

Even if the Port disagreed that there may be a significant environmental impact from the Project, CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR. Under CEQA, the Port “shall” prepare an EIR where there is “disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts” on the significance of the Project’s environmental impacts.50 The

46 APPX_000064.
47 APPX_000392.
48 APPX_000219.
49 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(f)(1); No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d 68, 75 (1974). 50 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(g).
11 expert comments provided by the Coalition and CCC demonstrate a disagreement with the Port’s scientific analysis, which requires the Port to produce an EIR. The City Council should ensure that CEQA be applied in a manner that provides “the fullest possible protection to the environment” — it requires that the Port be directed to produce a full EIR to meet its obligations of transparency and accountability to decisionmakers and impacted communities.51 Respectfully submitted,
Appellants:
707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4300
Los Angeles, CA 90017
T: (213) 766-1085

Kartik Raj, Legal Fellow
Oscar Espino-Padron, Senior Attorney
Lisa Fuhrmann, Senior Research and
Policy Analyst*
Adrian Martinez, Senior Attorney

EARTHJUSTICE
Alison Hahm, Associate Attorney
Justin Bogda, Legal Fellow

COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER

ENVIRONMENT
Elizabeth Jones, Staff Attorney

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Taylor Thomas, Co-Executive Director

EAST YARD COMMUNITIES FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Chris Chavez, Deputy Policy Director

COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR
Faraz Rizvi, Special Projects
Coordinator

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Morgan Goodwin, Senior Director
SIERRA CLUB – ANGELES CHAPTER

*Contributed to the research and/or factual portions of this document and did not provide legal services or analysis.

51 No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d 68, 83 (1974).

BEFORE THE LONG BEACH CITY COUNCIL

APPEAL OF LONG BEACH BOARD OF HARBOR
COMMISSIONER’S APPROVAL OF WORLD OIL TANK
INSTALLATION PROJECT (HD-21-537)

APPENDICES IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
VOLUME 1 OF 3
Bates Nos. APPX_000001–APPX_000230

i

INDEX OF APPENDICES

Appx
No.

Description Vol No. Bates Nos.
1 Comments from Earthjustice, Center for Community
Action and Environmental Justice, San Pedro & Peninsula Homeowners Coalition, and Sierra Club – Angeles Chapter on World Oil Tank Installation Project
(October 27, 2021)
1 of 3 APPX_000001–
APPX_000005
2-1 Port of Long Beach Final Negative Declaration/Application Summary Report on World Oil Tank Installation
(September 2021), Part 1 of 2
1 of 3 APPX_000006–
APPX_000230
2-2 Port of Long Beach Final Negative Declaration/Application Summary Report on World Oil Tank Installation
(September 2021), Part 2 of 2
2 of 3 APPX_000231–
APPX_000380
3 Comments from Earthjustice, Communities for a Better
Environment, East Yard Communities for Environmental
Justice, Center for Biological Diversity, and Coalition for Clean Air on the Draft Initial Study and Negative
Declaration for the World Oil Tank Installation Project (November 11, 2020)
3 of 3 APPX_000381–
APPX_000567
4 Comments from California Coastal Commission on World Oil Tank Installation Project Final IS/ND
(October 26, 2021)
3 of 3 APPX_000568–
APPX_000569

APPENDIX 1
Comments on Final IS/ND on World Oil Tank Installation Project October 27, 2021

EARTHJUSTICE

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

SAN PEDRO & PENINSULA HOMEOWNERS COALITION
SIERRA CLUB – ANGELES CHAPTER

October 27, 2021

VIA: ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
([email protected])

Board of Harbor Commissioners
Port of Long Beach
4801 Airport Plaza Dr.

Long Beach, CA 90815

RE: Comment on World Oil Tank Installation Project for Public Hearing on October 28, 2021
Dear Board of Harbor Commissioners:

The undersigned organizations write to express their strong opposition to the adoption of the Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration (“IS/ND”) prepared by the Port of Long Beach (“Port”) for the World Oil Tank Installation Project (“Project”).

This Project would involve the construction of two 25,000-barrel crude oil storage tanks at the World Oil Terminal. The Port’s IS/ND for this Project fails to provide adequate review of the Project’s impacts as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Communities and sensitive receptors near the World Oil Terminal bear disproportionate exposure to pollutants and cumulative health impacts from fossil fuel infrastructure. Inadequate CEQA review of this Project would deprive these communities and the general public of their right to know the impacts this additional fossil fuel infrastructure would have on their health and on the environment. Moreover, deficient environmental review undermines the ability of Commissioners to engage in informed decision making in approving this Project. For these reasons, the Commission should not approve this project until its impacts have been fully examined in an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”).

The Port’s IS/ND remains inadequate in several crucial ways:
• The Port failed to properly consult with the required agencies, including the California Coastal Commission (“CCC”) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”). In particular, the CCC submitted comments on APPX_000001

October 26 noting the IS/ND failed to show sufficient protection against flooding and storms, especially in the context of rising sea levels and climate change. As indicated by CCC’s comments, these concerns have not been adequately addressed in the Final IS/ND. Given the fifty-year lifespan of these tanks and the increasing danger posed by storms and flooding at the Port, this Project should not be approved until the Port fully consults with CCC and addresses the agency’s concerns. Moreover, CEQA also requires an EIR to be prepared where experts disagree on the significance of potential impacts of a Project.
1 • The IS/ND defines this Project in an improperly narrow way, preventing meaningful examination of the Project’s cumulative impacts. This Project would increase the World Oil Terminal’s already-substantial oil storage capacity by 50,000 barrels, increasing the number of tanks at the site from seven to nine. However, the IS/ND did not examine the Project’s impacts in the context of this existing infrastructure, leaving the public to speculate about the significance of the total emissions from the World Oil Terminal.

This piecemealed approach to permitting storage tanks at the terminal contravenes the requirements and purpose of CEQA.
2 • The IS/ND fails to investigate and adequately disclose existing conditions to properly understand the significance of this Project’s impacts on nearby communities. In particular, the Project would add to the cumulative burden created by the sixty-seven new storage tanks approved for construction in the region in the past ten years.3 The public and Commissioners lack the necessary information to understand the cumulative impacts on the environment of these closely related facilities.

• The IS/ND does not examine the environmental impacts of new uses the Project would facilitate in the region. The Project includes World Oil leasing two existing storage tanks for use by the Marathon and Glencore refineries.

1 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(g) (“If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR.”).
2 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 393 (1988). 3 See Appendix G of Comments from Earthjustice et al. submitted to the Port of Long Beach on November 20, 2020; SCAQMD, Working Group Meeting 2 for Proposed Amendment to Rule 1178 (July 15, 2021), http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1178/par1178-wgm2_final.pdf?sfvrsn=12 (Discussing numerous impacts of existing storage tanks).

APPX_000002

The construction of the Project’s tanks would facilitate these new leases, which cannot be meaningfully separated from the environmental impacts of the new storage tanks.

• The IS/ND summarily dismisses recent scientific studies that revealed dangerous underestimations of fugitive emissions from oil storage tanks. In particular, the SCAQMD-funded FluxSense study found that measured emissions of cancer-causing benzene were 34 times higher on average than estimated emissions.4 Julia May, Senior Scientist at Communities for a Better Environment, provided expert comments to the Port, explaining how this and other studies show the Project may have significant impacts on the environment.5 The Port’s rejection of this analysis is insufficient to defend this IS/ND, as CEQA requires an EIR to be prepared where experts disagree on the significance of a project’s impacts.6

• The IS/ND asserts that direct health impacts from ground-level ozone near the Project would be “negligible,” but stated it lacks methods or procedures to address those impacts.7 Instead of addressing those direct health impacts, the Port compared the Project’s volatile organic compound (“VOC”) emissions to VOC emissions for the entire county of Los Angeles to conclude the Project’s impacts were “negligible.” Given that VOC emissions are a pressing problem for nearby impacted communities, the Port’s comparison to emissions across Los Angeles County is irrelevant and inadequate.

• The IS/ND ignores rule amendments underway at South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), which the IS/ND wrongly cites as adequate VOC control measures. Given the serious discrepancies between reported VOC emissions from storage tanks and actual emissions, SCAQMD is actively engaged in rulemaking to update existing regulatory requirements. For instance, SCAQMD is set to complete its rule amendments

4 Johan Mellqvist, et al., FluxSense Inc., Emission Measurements of VOCs, NO2 and SO2 from the Refineries in the South Coast Air Basin Using Solar Occultation Flux and Other Optical Remote Sensing Methods 3 (Final Report Apr. 11, 2017), https://earthjustice.sharefile.com/d-s5312b425ff2c44f2a0c0415cd0f45d4a. 5 See Appendix A, Section II.A. of Comments from Earthjustice et al. submitted to the Port of Long Beach on November 20, 2020.
6 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(g).
7 Port of Long Beach, Final Negative Declaration/Application Summary Report World Oil Tank Installation Project at 8-94.

APPX_000003

for Rule 1178 (Storage Tanks at Petroleum Facilities) in March 2022.8 In the interest of using the best available science and control measures to protect impacted communities when planning, constructing, and operating storage tanks, the Port should hold this Project in abeyance until that crucial rulemaking has concluded.

• The IS/ND uses an improper baseline to analyze the Project’s impacts, which does not consider existing conditions. The IS/ND states the new storage tanks would not enable greater oil throughput at the terminal beyond limits under existing permits. However, the Port has not shown whether the Project would result in actual increases in oil throughput above current levels, which is the baseline for comparison required by CEQA.9

• The IS/ND dismisses the risks this Project poses in the event of fire or earthquakes in the area. The IS/ND notes that the terminal’s containment wall is designed to contain 90,000 barrels, but this Project would add 50,000 barrels of storage to the terminal’s existing 502,000-barrel capacity. The IS/ND does not properly consider that damage to several tanks could overwhelm existing containment wall capacity, resulting in significant environmental impacts. The IS/ND fails to examine whether a secondary containment system is necessary given the increasing storage capacity at the site.

• The IS/ND notes the Project would create 50,000 barrels of hazardous tank sludge over its lifetime. The Port dismisses this impact as insignificant because the ten-year cleaning would use only 4.5 percent of the capacity at a hazardous waste facility in Vernon. However, the IS/ND does not discuss the existing treatment load at the Vernon facility or other options in the region, which might require additional vehicle miles traveled and increase the risk to communities and the environment. Given the other storage tanks permitted in the region, the IS/ND has not shown that existing capacity at the Vernon facility is sufficient to treat tank sludge generated by this Project. ***

8 SCAQMD, Rule and Control Measure Forecast 2021-2022 Master Calendar (October 1, 2021), http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-oct1-013.pdf?sfvrsn=2. (See Rule 1178. Also note Rule 1173, estimated for completion in the 4th Quarter of 2022.). 9 Communities for a Better Env't v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321 (2010).

APPX_000004

This Project contravenes the Port’s Green Port Policy. The Policy’s guiding principles include the protection of the community, promotion of sustainability, and leadership in environmental stewardship. The Port states its focus is to “stave off climate change,”
10 yet this IS/ND claims that construction of 50,000 barrels of crude oil storage does not justify environmental analysis beyond an Initial Study. We urge the Commission to demonstrate its leadership and commitment to sustainability by requiring the Port to produce a full EIR for this Project to adequately consider the significant impacts from this Project and appropriate mitigation measures.

Sincerely,
Kartik Raj
Oscar Espino-Padron
Adrian Martinez

EARTHJUSTICE
Faraz Rizvi

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Peter M. Warren

SAN PEDRO & PENINSULA HOMEOWNERS

COALITION
Morgan Goodwin
SIERRA CLUB – ANGELES CHAPTER

10 Port of Long Beach, The Green Port Through the Years, https://polb.com/port-info/green-port/.

APPX_000005

APPENDIX 2-1
Final Negative Declaration/Application Summary Report
on World Oil Tank Installation, Part 1 of 2
September 2021

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

APPX_000006

APPX_000007
Final

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 nar
rative 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
APPX_000008
APPX_000009

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 APPX_000010

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 L ong 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 APPX_000011

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
APPX_000012

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
APPX_000013

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
APPX_000014
APPX_000015

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 APPX_000016

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.

APPX_000017

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.

APPX_000018
APPX_000019

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 APPX_000020

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.

APPX_000021

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
APPX_000022

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
APPX_000023

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
APPX_000024
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 enter the si te,  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 access. Th e 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  permeating  soil  or contaminating seawater.

World  Oil  proposes  to  construct  the  proposed  Pr
oject,  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 pipelines leadi
ng 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 pipe infrastructure. A short electri
cal 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 needs, 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., APPX_000025

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)
APPX_000026

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
APPX_000027

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
APPX_000028

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 APPX_000029

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
APPX_000030

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

APPX_000031
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
APPX_000032
APPX_000033

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 APPX_000034

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.

APPX_000035

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 APPX_000036

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.

APPX_000037

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.

APPX_000038

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.

APPX_000039

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 APPX_000040

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 APPX_000041

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 APPX_000042

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.

APPX_000043

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.

APPX_000044

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.

APPX_000045

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 APPX_000046

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.

APPX_000047

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 APPX_000048

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.

APPX_000049

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.

APPX_000050

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.

APPX_000051

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.

APPX_000052

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.

APPX_000053

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.

APPX_000054

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.

APPX_000055

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.

APPX_000056

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 APPX_000057

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.

APPX_000058

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.

APPX_000059

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 APPX_000060

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 APPX_000061

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.

APPX_000062

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 APPX_000063

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.

APPX_000064

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.

APPX_000065

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 APPX_000066

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.

APPX_000067

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 APPX_000068

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 APPX_000069

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 APPX_000070

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.

APPX_000071

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 APPX_000072

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.

APPX_000073

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 APPX_000074

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.

APPX_000075

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.

APPX_000076

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 APPX_000077

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 traf fic 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 APPX_000078

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).

APPX_000079

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.

The ground -borne energy of vibration has the potential to cause structural damage and annoyance.

Vibration can be felt outdoors, but the perceived intensity of vibration effects is much greater indoors due to the shaking of structures. Several land uses are considered sensitive to vibrations, and include hospitals, libraries, residential areas, schools, and churches. Additionally, land uses such as research and manufacturing where vibration-sensitive equipment is used (e.g., electron microscopes and high - resolution lithographic equipment), cultural and his toric resources, and concert halls are sensitive to vibration.

There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings. The PPV velocity is normally described in inches per second (in/sec). California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) guidance states that for continuous/ frequent vibration sources the vibration damage potential threshold is 0.1 in/sec PPV for fragile buildings, 0.25 in/sec PPV for historic and some old buildings, 0.3 in/sec PPV for older residential structures, and 0.5 in/sec for new residential structures and modern industrial/commercial buildings (Caltrans, 2013b – Table 19). Human response/annoyance potential is barely perceptible at 0.01 in/sec PPV, distinctly perceptible at 0.04 in/sec PPV, strongly perceptible at 0.10 in/sec PPV, and severe at 0.4 in/sec PPV (Caltrans, 2013b – Table 20).
a. Would the project result in 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? L
ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Title 8 (Health and Safety), Section 8.80 (Noise) prescribes exterior noise level limits by land use district, as shown in Table 4.13-2. The noise limits specified in Table 4.13-2 apply to noise sources that persist for a cumulative total of more than 30 minutes in any hour. The noise level limit is to be applied at the property line of the receiving property. The proposed Project would be located in Land Use District Four; the sensitive receptors are located in Land Use District One. In the event that the noise source contains a steady audible tone such as a whine, screech, or hum, or is a repetitive noise such as hammering or riveting, Chapter 8.80.160 of the LBMC requires that the exterior noise limits presented in Table 4.13 -2 be reduced (made more stringent) by 5 dB. This 5 -dB penalty for tonal/impulsive noise would apply to many construction activities, such as vibratory hammering.

APPX_000080

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

September 2021 4-48
Table 4.13-2. Long Beach Municipal Code Exterior Noise Limits Receiving Land Use District Time Period
Noise Level
(dBA) 1, 2
District One – Predominately residential with other land use types also present 10:00 pm – 7:00 am 45 7:00 am – 10:00 pm 50
District Two – Predominately commercial with other land use types also present 10:00 pm – 7:00 am 55 7:00 am – 10:00 pm 60
District Three – Predominately industrial with other land use types also present Anytime 65 District Four – Predominately industrial with other land use types also present Anytime 70 District Five – Airport, freeways, and waterways regulated by other agencies Regulated by other agencies and laws Source: LBMC, 2020b – Chapter 8.80.160 – Exterior noise limits, Table A.

Notes:
1 – Districts Three and Four limits are intended primarily for use at their boundaries rather than for noise control within those districts. 2 – In the event that alleged offensive noise contains a steady audible tone such as a whine, screech, or hum, or is a repetitive noise such as hammering or riveting or contains music or speech conveying informational content, the standard limits set forth shall be reduced by 5 decibels.

Section 8.80.150 (Exterior noise limits – Sound levels by receiving land use district), Part B, further states that the following limits shall not be exceeded:
(1) The noise standard for the various land use districts identified in Table 4.13-2 for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour; or
(2) The noise standard plus 5 dB for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour; or (3) The noise standard plus 10 dB for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour; or (4) The noise standard plus 15 dB for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour; or (5) The noise standard plus 20 dB or the maximum measured ambient, for any period of time.

In addition, the City’s noise ordinance states that in receptor locations where the existing ambient noise level exceeds the permissible noise limit within any of the first four noise limit categories (above), the LBMC allows the noise exposure standard to be increased in 5 dB increments as necessary to encompass or reflect the ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.

The LBMC imposes additional regulations on construction activity noise in Section 8.80.202, which limit construction hours to 7:00 am to 7:00 pm weekdays, 9:00 am to 6:00 pm Saturdays, and no work on Sundays except for emergency work or with a Sunday work permit. These additional regulations do not strictly apply to construction activities within the Long Beach Harbor District. Construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to occur Monday through Friday (5-day work weeks) between 7:00 am and 5:00 pm (one 10-hour shift per day).

Noise associated with the proposed Project would occur during construction, which is estimated to last approximately 10 months. Equipment utilized during construction would vary by construction phase as shown in Table 2-2. As shown in Table 4.12-3, typical maximum noise levels (Lmax) generated by the types of construction equipment expected to be utilized range from approximately 7 3 to 101 dBA (e.g. generator, vibratory pile driver) at a distance of 50 feet. These represent actual measured instantaneous maximum noise levels.

APPX_000081

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

September 2021 4-49
Table 4.13-3. Noise Levels and Use Factors for Construction Equipment

Equipment List
Equivalent Federal Highway
Administration Classification
Acoustical Use
Factor (Percent)
Measured Lmax
(at 50 feet)
Air Compressor Compressor (air) 40 78
Bobcat Backhoe 40 78
Concrete Concrete Mixer Truck 40 79
Crane Crane 16 81
Dump Truck Dump Truck 50 80
Excavator Excavator 40 81
Flat Bed Truck, Dump Truck Flat Bed Truck 40 841
Generator Generator (<25 KVA) 50 73
Skip Loader Front End Loader 40 79
Man-Lift Man Lift 20 75
Pile Driver 2 Mounted Impact Hammer
(hoe ram)
20 90
Pick-up Truck Pick-up Truck 40 75
Source: FWHA, 2006.

Notes:
1 – Due to the limited number of actual data samples, the Spec. 721.560 Lmax at 50 feet is used. 2 – Piles to be vibro piles or rammed aggregate piers (RAPs), which would utilize a down-hole vibrator suspended from a crane or specialty rig, or may involve a hydraulic break hammer and rammer, or mounted impact hammer (hoe ram). The latter is assumed for this analysis.

The construction site is limited by the existing containment wall, tanks, and pipes, such that no more than two to three pieces of equipment would be in operation at any given time. Assuming worst-case operation of a pile driver (mounted impact hammer/hoe ram), crane, and bobcat during the foundation installation phase, maximum noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor ( residence) would be approximately 40 dBA taking into account distance, location, and intervene structures (see Appendix C) . This residence is located within District 1, where the exterior noise limit during daytime is 50 dBA (see Table 4.13 -2).

However, ambient noise measured at this location ranged from 47 dBA (minimum) to 64 dBA (maximum) with an average of 53 dBA Leq . Per LBMC Chapter 8.80.160, the exterior noise limit threshold would thereby increase to 55 dBA but would then be reduced to 50 dBA due to tonal/impulsive noise associated with pile driving (per LBMC Chapter 8.80.160). As such, construction activities would not result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels in excess of the established LBMC exterior noise limits at the closest residence. Construction noise levels at the elementary schools (Edison and Cesar Chavez) would be lower than the estimated 40 dBA as they are located farther from the Project site. As such, temporary construction noise levels at the schools would also be below the District 1 exterior noise limit threshold of 45 dBA ( This is conservative since the limit would also increase due to higher ambient noise levels).

Therefore, temporary noise levels from construction of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in excess of established standards. Impacts would be less than significant.

Operational activities associated with the proposed Project would be similar to existing operations. The new tanks would supplant the terminal's existing crude tanks , such that a dditional existing tanks would then be available for third-party lease, as is currently done for several existing tanks. This would result in additional fuel oil transfers via existing piping , as well as up to a 10 percent in crease in use of the truck loading rack, which equates to approximately three additional trucks entering and leaving the facility per APPX_000082

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

September 2021 4-50
day. This limited increase in operational truck traffic would not increase ambient noise levels. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Vibration-sensitive land uses include high-precision manufacturing facilities or research facilities with optical and electron microscopes. None of these occur in the Project area.

Therefore, the significance threshold for “excessive ground-borne vibration ” depends on whether a nuisance, annoyance, or physical damage to any buildings could occur. As there are no sensitive receptors nearby, this assessment will focus on physical damage to any buildings, specifically the control building and nearby tanks on the site.

As described in the Project Description, equipment used during construction would include trucks, cranes, excavator, skip loader, bobcat, pile driver (e.g., vibro pier or RAPs utilize a down-hole vibrator suspended from a crane or mounted impact hammer/hoe ram), manlift, air compressor, and generator. Operation of large trucks, specifically flatbed truck and dump trucks, could result in ground -borne vibration not only due to general operations but also due to travel on cracked/potholes or faulting roadway surfaces (Caltrans, 2013b). Truck traveling over pavement discontinuities often rattle and make noise, which tend to make the event more noticeable when the ground vibration generated may only be barely noticeable.

Vehicles traveling on a smooth roadway are rarely, if ever, the source of perceptible ground vibration (Caltrans, 2013b). Paved roads in the Project area are maintained and relatively smooth, such that ground- borne vibration is not anticipated to occur from the use of haul or material delivery trucks or trucks during operations.

Loaded trucks would result in vibration levels of 0.076 in/sec PPV at 25 feet (FTA, 2018 – Table 7-4). Vibro piers or RAPs would utilize a down-hole vibrator , mounted impact hammer (hoe ram), or equivalent (referred to as “pile driver” in the equipment list) . Operation of a hoe ram would typically result in vibration levels of 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet, or a sonic pile driver would result in vibration levels of 0.17 in/sec PPV at 25 feet (FTA, 2018 – Table 7-4). These vibration levels would attenuate rapidly (i.e., 200 feet or less) from the source and would not be perceptible outside of the construction areas and immediately adjacent to the haul routes, which are not located in proximity to vibration-sensitive land uses. However, with the existing World Oil tanks and control building located immediately adjacent to the construction area, these vibrations may result in building damage. As discussed above, the vibration damage potential threshold is 0.3 in/sec PPV for older residential structures (e.g., control building) and 0.5 in/sec for new residential structures and modern industrial/commercial buildings (e.g., existing tanks) (Caltrans, 2013b – Table 19). Based on the Project’s specified equipment, the vibration levels generated (maximum of 0.17 in/sec PPV at 25 feet) would not result in damage to the control building and nearby tanks. No traditional impact pile driving would occur. Vibrations would not be enough to annoy people outside of the World Oil Terminal. Therefore, impacts from groundborne noise and vibration would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

APPX_000083

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

September 2021 4-51
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? NO IMPACT. The Project site is not located within 2 miles of a public airport or private airstrip. The Long Beach Municipal Airport is located approximately 4 miles to the northeast and the Torrance Municipal Airport is over 14 miles to the northwest . As such, the proposed Project would not expose construction workers to excessive noise levels associated with airport operations. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

APPX_000084

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

September 2021 4-52

4.14 Population and Housing

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
NO IMPACT. A project could in duce population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and/or business) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure) . No residential uses, major businesses, offices, or infrastructure expansions would be developed as part of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not induce unplanned direct population growth in the area and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
NO IMPACT. The Project site is located within an existing terminal at the POLB. No housing or residential uses occur within the Project site or POLB. Project implementation would not displace any existing housing or residents. Therefore, the proposed Project would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

APPX_000085

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

September 2021 4-53

4.15 Public Services

PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govern- mental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environ- mental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facili- ties, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
L
ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The Project site is currently served by the Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD) Fire Station No. 20 located at 331 Pier D Avenue in Long Beach, approximately one mile southwest of the Project site (LBFD, 2020).

Construction and operations of the proposed Project would not result in the need for a new fire station or expansion of an existing facility to maintain LBFD’s existing level of service. Construction activities would occur on site, and no street closures are anticipated that would potentially impact servic e ratios, response times, or other fire department performance objectives. Given the presence of flammable materials such as crude oil, diesel, and other petroleum products, the proposed Project would follow existing safety protocols and risk management pr ocedures (e.g., the American Petroleum Institute 653 Standard inspection, daily operator inspections, and annual cathodic protection surveys) and thus would not substantially exacerbate the potential for fire hazards. Further, the terminal would maintain on-site fire lane access during construction and operation. Operations of the terminal would be similar to existing conditions, and thus, would not increase demand for fire services.

As discussed in Section 4.14(a), the proposed Project would not induce population growth in the area or establish any new businesses and, therefore, would not result in a substantial increase in the demand for fire protection services. The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

APPX_000086

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

September 2021 4-54
b) Police Protection?
NO IMPACT. The Long Beach Police Department provides police services to the Project site. The closest police station is the West Patrol Division located at 1835 West Santa Fe Avenue, approximately 1.3 miles north of the site (LBPD, 2020). Other agencies responsible for security at the POLB include the U.S . Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and Homeland Security.

The proposed Project would add two new crude oil storage tanks to i mprove the efficiency of terminal operations by allowing World Oil to lease existing tanks to third -party vendors. As discussed in Section

4.14(a), the Project would not induce population growth and, therefore, would not result in a substantial increase in the demand for police protection services. Construction activities and staging would occur on- site, and no street closures are anticipated that may potentially affect service ratios, response times, or other police department performance objectives. Therefore, the proposed Project would not require new or expanded police facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts. No impacts related to police services would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c) Schools?
N
O IMPACT. The Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) serves over 72,000 students from preschool to high school in 85 public schools located in the cities of Long Beach, Lakewood, Signal Hill, and Avalon on Catalina Island (LBUSD, 2020). The proposed Project does not propose any residential development that may introduce new permanent student residents in the LBUSD. Throughout the two construction phases, approximately eight workers per day would be present for approximately 10 months. It is anticipated that this nominal amount of construction workers would come from the local labor force. No increase in staff during operations is anticipated that could potentially i ntroduce new families with school-aged children into the LBUSD. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities. No impacts related to existing or planned schools would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d) Parks?
N
O IMPACT. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not induce population growth in the area that could cause an increase in the use of existing parks of recreational facilities provided by the Long Beach Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine. As discussed in Section 4.15(c), approximately eight workers per day would be on-site for approximately 10 months during construction. This nominal amount would occur temporarily, and it is anticipated that these workers would come from the local labor force. No increase in permanent staff would occur that would introduce new permanent residents to the City of Long Beach. Therefore, the proposed Project would not require the construction of new or expanded park facilities. No impact related to existing or planned parks in the region would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
e) Other Public Facilities?
N
O IMPACT. Construction and operations of the proposed Project would not generate additional permanent residents. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physic al impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered public facilities (e.g., hospitals, libraries, APPX_000087

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

September 2021 4-55
and post offices), the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts. No impact related to other government services or public facilities would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

APPX_000088

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

September 2021 4-56

4.16 Recreation
RECREATION Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recrea- tional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
NO IMPACT. The nearest recreational facility to the proposed Project is Cesar E. Chavez Park (401 Golden Avenue), located approximately 2,700 feet east across the Los Angeles River . As discussed in Section

4.14(a), the proposed Project would not substantially induce population growth in the area, and therefore, would not cause an increase in the use of existing parks or recreational facilities. Approximately eight workers would work on-site during construction, which is expected to occur over a 10-month period. This minimal quantity of workers would likely come from the local labor force and no additional employees would be hired for Project operations that could potentially introduce permanent residents to the City of Long Beach. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. No impact on existing parks or recreational facilities would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recrea- tional facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? N
O IMPACT. The proposed Project would not include construction of recreational fa cilities. Furthermore, the proposed Project is not expected to induce substantial population growth that would result in increased demand for or use of existing recreational facilities. As discussed above in Section 4.16(a), construction workers would likely come from the local labor force and no additional employees would be hired for Project operation. No increase in permanent residents would occur; therefore, construction or expansion of recreational facilities would not be needed. Therefore, no impact o n recreational facilities would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

APPX_000089

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

September 2021 4-57

4.17 Transportation

TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. C onflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
a. Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed Project would result in temporary vehicle trips during construction. Construction worker trips would occur in the morning and early evening hours. Truck trips associated with materials and equipment deliveries to the Project site would likely be distributed throughout the workday, with more frequent trips in the early s tages of construction when the site is prepared, foundations are poured, and the tank components are delivered. Given the temporary period of construction (10 months), trips would be for a limited time along roadways accessing the Project site.

Temporary construction trips are assumed to come from the local area or from the greater Los Angeles County area. While construction-related trips would utilize regional freeways (likely converging on to the I-710 freeway) to access Ocean Boulevard/Pico Avenue and the site, these temporary trips would not be in numbers that could substantially diminish the performance of the circulation system. As shown in Appendix A, construction would generate a maximum of 116 daily total trips (64 worker commute trips, 44 haul related trips, and 8 vendor/delivery trips). It is assumed that haul and vendor trips would be spread throughout the day. Therefore, worst -case temporary peak hour trips (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.) would be 32. These peak hour trips would result from construction worker commutes to and from the Project site. Please note, these represent peak daily trips during construction. Average daily trips during construction would be less. All construction-related trips would only occur temporarily during construction. While these trips would occur on regional and local roadways that connect to the Project site, they would be temporary and the Project would not impact any City of Long Beach or Los Angeles County program, plan, ordina nce, or policy related to transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the site or along local roadways (not including programs or plans that pertain to vehicle miles travelled, which is addressed under checklist question 4.17(b)). There would be a less-than-significant impact to such facilities.

Baseline maximum truck count at the loading rack is 28 per day. As discussed in Section 2.11, Operations and Maintenance, once constructed, as a worst -case under atypical operations, a maximum increase in truck trips would increase byof 10 percent has been assumed. This would result in a project increase of three truck trips per day (a new maximum of 31 trucks per day at the loading rack). The number of truck trips (approximately one truck per month) associated with crude oil balancing is not anticipated to APPX_000090

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

September 2021 4-58
increase during operations as a result of the proposed Project . An increase of three trips per day associated with the proposed project would not conflict with any program pertaining to performance of the circulation system and less than significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(3) and the City of Long Beach SB 743 Implementation Plan ( City of Long Beach, 2020 b), a qualitative analysis of construction traffic vehicle miles travelled (VMT) may be appropriate. As discussed under Section 4.17 (a), temporary construction-related trips are assumed to come from the local area or from the greater Los Angeles County area. A worst-case average would assume that each construction worker commute may generate up to 29.4 VMT, material delivery trips may generate up to 13.8 VMT, and haul trips would be variable (see Appendix A). This VMT is generally consistent with typical employee VMT in the City of Long Beach (City of Long Beach, 2020).

While construction would result in additional trips and VMT, these trips would be temporary and only in volumes necessary for the delivery of equipment and materials to the site , hauling away debris, and constructing the proposed Project. These construction-related trips are not considered to be tr ansit- friendly trips. Equipment and material deliveries, as well as haul trips, cannot utilize public transportation in efforts to reduce overall VMT of the Project. Additionally, most construction workers trips are also not considered transit -friendly, as many workers are required to bring their own tools and protective equipment, making it essential they utilize personal vehicles. Therefore, while the proposed Project would generate temporary construction trips and VMT, they would be temporary and cease upon completion of construction.

Baseline maximum truck count at the loading rack is 28 per day. As discussed in Section 2.11, Operations and Maintenance, as a worst -case under atypical operations, a once constructed, maximum increase in truck trips would increase byof 10 percent has been assumed. This would result in a Project increase of 3 truck trips per day (a new maximum of 31 trucks per day at the loading rack). With respect to permanent “operations” trips, absent substantial evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 permanent trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact (OPR, 2018; City of Long Beach, 2020). The proposed Project increase of 3 trips per day is well below this threshold. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no permanent effect on existing VMT of the area. For these reasons, the proposed Project is found to not affect existing transit uses or corridors and is recognized to cause a less- than-significant transportation impact with respect to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(3).

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. All construction disturbance would occur within the existing World Oil Terminal facility. The proposed Project does not require the realignment of existing internal access roads and the main public entrance to World Oil Terminal on Pico Avenue would be unaffected by the proposed Project. The proposed Project does not include the modi fications to any public roadways or driveways.

During construction, oversized truck trips could be required to deliver large pieces of construction equipment and materials to the site. If needed, any necessary oversized truck trips would obtain all APPX_000091

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

September 2021 4-59
required permits from Caltrans and local jurisdictions. The construction contractor would follow the rules and requirements of such permits, which would ensure no hazards to motorists or others utilizing the public roadway system occur. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Project construction would not encroach upon or cause any temporary disruptions to public roadways. As discussed under Section 4.17(c), in the event any oversized truck trips are necessary during construction, the construction contractor would follow all rules and requirements of any required permits which typically include assurances for emergency vehicle m ovements. Once operational, the proposed Project would have no impact on access or movement to emergency service providers. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

APPX_000092

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

September 2021 4-60

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code §21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

(i) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code §5020.1(k), or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(ii) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code §5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
(i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? N
O IMPACT. As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, there is no potential to discover an unknown tribal cultural resource within the Project site as part of the proposed Project’s construction, since the site is previously disturbed and underlain by hydraulic and imported fill (Albus-Keefe, 2018). The record search and literature information obtained from South Central Coastal Information Center did not indicate the presence of any eligible or listed historic resources within the Project area (see Appendix B – Confidential).

Since there are no significant historical resources located within the Project area, and ground disturbance is planned within hydraulic and imported fills only, the proposed Project would not have an impact on tribal cultural resources.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

APPX_000093

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

September 2021 4-61
(ii) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
NO IMPACT. As discussed previously, the proposed Project would not have the potential to encounter an unknown or buried tribal cultural resource because the Project area is previously disturbed and is located on hydraulic and imported fill. Furthermore, there are no known tribal cultural resources within the Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have an impact on such resources.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

APPX_000094

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

September 2021 4-62

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals ?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed Project would not require any new or expanded wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electrical power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. The proposed Project is located in a developed area that is served by existing utilities. The two new tanks would be connected to the existing site pipe system through the addition of approximately 40 linear feet of piping, and a short electrical conduit connection would link the new tanks to the existing subpanel located just outside the containment wall to the north. These connections would not require expansion or construction of new utility facilities.

Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (LACSD) oversees wastewater treatment facilities that serve the City. The LACSD constructs, operates, and maintains f acilities to collect, treat, recycle, and dispose of sewage and industrial wastes. Wastewater generated on site would be delivered to either the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) of LACSD or the Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant for wastewater treatment (LACSD, 2020) . The proposed Project is not expected to generate wastewater that exceeds LACSD’s wastewater treatment capacity . The proposed Project would result in a slight increase in wastewater production with the addition of eight workers on site during construction activities.

Wastewater generated by construction workers is expected to be nominal due to the minimal number of workers present. Approximately 50,000 bbl of water sourced from the Long Beach Water Department (LBWD) would be used to hydrotest the two new tanks. The wastewater produced from the hydrotest would be tested for any contaminants in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements before being discharged into the harbor. As such, the wa stewater would APPX_000095

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

September 2021 4-63
not be transported to the LACSD treatment facility and would not exceed its wastewater treatment capacity.

During operations , the two new tanks are anticipated to generate less than 300 gallons of dewatered wastewater per tank per day. The dewatered wastewater would be transferred through existing pipes into the existing three 10,000 -gallon wastewater treatment storage tanks and then discharged to the LACSD treatment facility in compliance with World Oil’s discharge permit, as is currently done for the existing tanks. No additional staffing is anticipated under the proposed Project, and therefore, the proposed Project would not generate a substantial amount o f additional wastewater compared with existing conditions. Impacts to utilities facilities would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years ? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed Project would not generate a substantial increase in demand for water. The proposed Project would not introduce a new land use that could increase demand for water services. During construction, a small amount of water may be used during excavation for tank foundations to maintain optimum moisture content of soil layers for compaction. This water use would be temporary and occur over a short duration (approximately three months). Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.19(a), approximately 50,000 bbl of water sourced from the LBWD would be used for the NPDES permitted hydrotest. This activity would only occur once during construct ion to test the tanks for leaks and structural integrity.

Upon completion, future Project operation would remain similar to existing operations. Approximately 300 gallons of water per day are currently dewatered from the existing tanks. A smaller amount would be dewatered from the smaller 25,000-bbl tanks per day. As such, the proposed Project would marginally increase the facility’s total amount of dewatered wastewater to be piped to the 10,000-gallon wastewater treatment storage tanks and LACSD treatment facility. No additional water is anticipated to be used during operation, as the number of staff is expected to remain the same. The proposed Project would continue to be adequately served by the LBWD ’s existing water entitlements and facilities. Therefore, the LBWD’s ability to serve the proposed Project and reasonably foreseeable future development would not be adversely impacted. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
L
ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. As discussed in Section 4.19(a), approximately 50,000 bbl of water would be used to hydrotest the two new tanks during construction. The hydrotest wastewater would not be sent to the LACSD treatment facility, and thus, would not reduce the capacity of the treatment facility. During operation, the two new tanks would be regularly dewatered. The dewatered wastewater would be transferred through existing pipes into the existing three 10,000 -gallon wastewater treatment storage tanks and then discharged to the LACSD treatment facility in compliance with World Oil’s discharge permit, as is currently done for the existing tanks. The proposed Project would not exceed the wastewater APPX_000096

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

September 2021 4-64
treatment capacity of the JWPCP or Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d. Wo uld the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed Project would te mporarily generate waste associated with construction activities . All construction waste and 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, 20 07). Solid waste generated during Project operation is expected to be approximately the same as that of current operations, as operations would remain similar and no increase in staff is anticipated. 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 10 years and are disposed of at permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. The addition of two new storage tanks would slightly increase the total amount of solid waste generated by the facility, but disposal would occur infrequently. The Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s waste during construction and operation.

Impacts relating to local waste infra structure and solid waste reduction goals would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
L
ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed Project is subject to federal, State, and local regulations and codes relating to solid waste disposal. Specifically, construction activities of the proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations pertaining to solid waste disposal. These regulations include but are not limited to Assembly Bill (AB) 939, California Waste Management Act , which requires each city in the state to divert at least 50 percent of their solid waste from landfill disposal through source reduction, recycling and composting (CalRecycle, 2018); LBMC Chapter 8.6, Solid Waste, Recycling, and Litter Prevention; California Health and Safety Code Part 13 Title 42, Public Health and Welfare ; and U.S.

Code Chapter 39, Solid Waste Disposal. In addition, waste 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, 2 007). Solid waste generated during operational activities is expected to remain similar to existing conditions and would be hauled away by the current waste service provider. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed Project would comply with f ederal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts regarding compliance with federal, state, and local solid waste regulations would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

APPX_000097

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

September 2021 4-65

4.20 Wildfire

WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastruc- ture (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
a. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
NO IMPACT. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire, the project site and entire City of Long Beach is not located within a High Fire Risk Area (CAL FIRE, 2007). Furthermore, the project site and overall POLB are listed as “not burnable” on the U.S . Forest Service Wildfire Hazard Potential website (USFS, 2020). Therefore, wildfire impacts would not occur.

There are no wildfire response plans applicable to the Project site. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b. Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
NO IMPACT. Refer to Section 4.20(a).

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c. Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? N
O IMPACT. Refer to Section 4.20(a).

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

APPX_000098

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

September 2021 4-66
d. Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
NO IMPACT. Refer to Section 4.20(a).

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

APPX_000099

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

September 2021 4-67

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Does the project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

Discussion
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? L
ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the proposed Project would not substantially adversely impact candidate, sensitive, or special -status species. The Project site is completely developed and does not contain suitable habitat for wildlife species. No special-status wildlife or plant species occur within the Project site, and thus, would not be impacted by Project construction or operation activities. Several non-native grasses and herbaceous weedy species, as well as common bird species were observed on -site during the site visit conducted o n March 3, 2020. To comply with the federal MBTA, the Applicant will be required to follow the requirements of the MBTA as specified in Special Condition BIO-1 (see Section 4.4 [a]). Compliance with the Special Condition BIO -1 would protect any nesting migratory bird on -site during construction. No sensitive riparian habitats or protected wetlands are located within or near the Project site; as such, the proposed Project would not impact sensitive habitat for fish or wildlife. Project construction would be confined to the Project site and would not affect the movement of or restrict the range of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species.

Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources , the proposed Project would not impact the significance of a historical or archaeological resource. The Project site is in District 2 of the POLB, which is an artificial landform composed of hydraulic fill. There are no records of any eligible or listed California historic properties or archaeological resources within the Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not eliminate any important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

Overall, the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment and suitable APPX_000100

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

September 2021 4-68
habitat, adversely impact wildlife and fish species, or eliminate important examples of a major period of California history or prehistory. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed Project involves the construction and installation of two new storage tanks to the existing World Oil Terminal. Although the proposed Project has impacts that were determined to be less than significant that may incrementally affect other resources , they are not considered cumulatively considerable due to the relatively nominal level and area of impact, highly developed industrial surroundings, and temporary nature of the proposed Project. For example, a cumulatively considerable impact may occur if the Project generates sludge tank bottoms at substantial quantities compared with the capacity of a TSDF. As described in Section 4.9 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), the proposed Project would generate approximately 15,000 bbls of sludge tank bottoms over its 50-year service life, which is a small portion compared with the overall capacity (1 million gallons with an additional 400,000-gallon equivalent of container storage) at the nearest U.S. Ecology waste facility in Vernon, California. As such, the proposed Project would not result in cumulatively considerable hazardous waste impacts.

Generally, contributions to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts are cumulative due to the regional and global nature of air pollution and climate change, respectively . As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, and Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed Project ’s impacts would be less than significant with regards to these environmental factors. The proposed Project, as well as all other current projects (e.g., similar ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future construction projects) in the region, would comply with applicable SCAQMD standards, recommendations, and regulations, which are designed to limit air quality impacts within its jurisdiction, as well as State laws. As such, all potential cumulative impacts regarding air quality and greenhouse gas emissions would be limited and minimized.

The construction activities are minor and would be completed within approximately 10 months.

Operational activities would not substantially change. As such, the proposed Project’s cumulative impacts are considered less than significant.
c. Does the project have environmental effects, which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. As discussed in the analysis above, implementation of the proposed Project would result in no impacts or l ess than significant impacts to all environmental issues areas, including those which may cause adverse effects on humans . No potentially significant impacts were found, and impacts were determined not to be cumulativ ely considerable. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not have a significant environmental effect that could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

APPX_000101

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

September 2021 5-1

5. Application Summary Report
This chapter, in conjunction with the Initial Study /Negative Declaration , constitutes an Application Summary Report prepared in accordance with the certified 1990 Port of Long Beach Port Master Plan (PMP), as amended, and the California Coastal Act of 1976 (CCA). In the consistency analysis discussed below, the proposed Project is in conformance with the stated policies of the PMP and the CCA.

5.1 California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis
In accordance with the CCA, the Coastal Zone includes all areas within 3 miles seaward and approximately 1,000 yards inland, depending upon the level of existing inland development. Chapter 3 of the CCA provides the standards by which the adequacy of local coastal programs is determined, while Chapter 8 of the CCA governs California ports, including the POLB, and recognizes these ports as pri mary economic and coastal resources that are essential elements of the national maritime industry (Section 30701[a]).

The following is a discussion of applicable CCA sections and appropriate project-related information.

5.1.1 Chapter 3 of CCA
The specific policies of Chapter 3 of the CCA would not apply to the proposed Project because the proposed improvements at the existing World Oil Terminal Facility at Pier C is not among the appealable project categories in Section 30715 of Chapter 8 of the CCA, as further discussed in Section 5.1.2.

5.1.2 Chapter 8 of CCA
Chapter 8 of the CCA recognizes California ports, including the Port of Long Beach, as primary economic and coastal resources that are essential elements of the national maritime industry (Section 30701[a]).

Relevant Chapter 8 sections of the CCA are listed below and their relationship to the proposed Project is discussed below.

Section 30708: Location, Design and Construction of Port-related Developments All port-related developments shall be located, designed, and constructed so as to:
(a) Minimize substantial adverse environmental impacts. (b) Minimize potential traffic conflicts between vessels. (c) Give highest priority to the use of existing land space within harbors for port purposes, including, but not limited to, navigational facilities, shipping industries, and necessary support and access facilities. (d) Provide for other beneficial uses consistent with the public trust, including, but not limited to, recreation and wildlife habitat uses, to the extent feasible.
(e) Encourage rail service to port areas and multicompany use of facilities. (a) Minimize substantial adverse environmental impacts.

This Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to CEQA finds that the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to the environmental factors listed in Section 3.1. As designed, t he proposed Project would avoid substantial adverse effect s on the environment and wou ld be consistent with CCA Section 30708(a).

APPX_000102
World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021  5‐2
(b) Minimize potential traffic conflicts between vessels.

Vessel trips are not associated with existing or proposed operations of the World Oil Terminal, nor would they  be  associated  with  construction  of  the  proposed  Project.  No  vessel  trips  are  associated  with operations of the World Oil Terminal. The proposed Project would expand storage capacity at the World Oil Terminal but would not increase current or future vessel traffic within the Port. Construction materials would be transported via regional and local roadways and, as discussed in IS/ND Section 2.11 (Operations and Maintenance), no vessel transport would occurterminal operations would remain similar once the proposed Project is implemented. During operations, World Oil Terminal would not require an increase in staff. Crude oil and fuel oils would continue to be shipped through pipeline and/or truck loading racks to and from onsite tanks.  Third‐party vendors  who import/export  petroleum from the Project site would generally utilize existing pipelines. Existing operations of the truck loading racks are also anticipated to increase 10 percent, but nNo marine transport would be needed. As such, operational activities would have no effect on marine transport. The proposed Project would be consistent with CCA Section 30708(b). (c) Give highest priority to the use of existing land space within harbors for port purposes.

The proposed Project would be developed at an World Oil’s existing petroleum bulk station and terminal at Pier C, which would serve to expand realign World Oil’s storage capacity and improve the efficiency of terminal  operations  by  allowing  more  tanks  to  be  available  for  lease  by  third‐party  vendors.  As  the proposed  Project  would  improve  existing  Port  operations,  it  would  be  consistent  with  CCA  Section 30708(c).
(d) Provide for other beneficial uses consistent with the public trust, including, but not limited to, recreation and wildlife habitat uses, to the extent feasible.

The Project site is located within Harbor Planning District 2 (Northeast Harbor). As described in the PMP, the primary
goals for Planning District 2 are to improve efficiency in cargo movements and provide better allocation  of  available  primary  Port  facilities  by  expansion  through  acquiring  privately  held  property (POLB, 1990). Recreational uses are considered inconsistent with the primary Port development goals of Planning District 2 and therefore are not encouraged in this distr ict (POLB, 1990). Currently the Project site consists of a gravel area within an existing petroleum bulk station and terminal and does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. As the proposed Project would not affect an area that could provide be neficial uses for the public or suitable wildlife habitat, the proposed Project would be consistent with CCA Section 30708(d).
(e) Encourage rail service to port areas and multicompany use of facilities.

None  of  the  proposed  Project  activities  would  affect  rRail  service  is  not  associated  with  existing  or proposed operations of the World Oil Terminal, nor would they be associated with construction of the proposed Project. The proposed Project would increase multi‐company use of the World Oil Terminal by enabling third‐party vendors to import/export petroleum from the Project site via existing pipelines and truck loading racks. The proposed Project would be consistent with CCA Section 30708(e).

Section 30715(a)(1): Permit Authority; Appealable Approvals As stated in Chapter 8, Section 30715(a) of the CCA, certification of the PMP allows the Board of Harbor Commissioners to exercise permit authority over any new development contained in the certified PMP, except for categories of development that are appealable to the California Coastal Commission (CCC). The proposed Project would not be appealable under the CCA.

APPX_000103
World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021  5‐3
(a) Until such time as a port master plan or any portion thereof has been certified, the commission  shall  permit  developments  within  ports  as  provided  for  in  Chapter  7 (commencing with Section 30600). After a port master plan or any portion thereof has been  certified,  the  permit  authority  of  the  commission  provided  in  Chapter  7 (commencing with Section 30600) shall no longer be exercised by the commission over any new development contained in the certified plan or any portion thereof and shall at that time be delegated to the appropriate port governing body, except that approvals of any  of  the  following  categories  of  development  by  the  port  governing  body  may  be appealed to the commission:
(1) Developments for the storage, transmission, and processing of liquefied natural gas and crude oil in such quantities as would have a significant impact upon the oil and gas supply of the state or nation or both the state and nation. A development which has a significant impact shall be defined in the master plans.

Under the authority delegated by the CCA, the POLB issues consolidated coastal development permits under the certified 1990 PMP and construction permits under the Long Beach City Charter Section 1215 termed  a  “Harbor  Development  Permit”.  The  proposed  Project  would  construct  two  new  petroleum storage tanks to support existing operations at the World Oil Terminal. The relatively small size of the proposed storage tanks (i.e., 25,000 bbl) would not have a significant impact on State or national oil and gas supply. The U.S. produced around 10‐12 million bbl per day of crude oil and 80‐100 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas between 2018 and 2020 (EIA, 2021a). California produced 10‐14 million bbl per month of crude oil (EIA, 2021b) and 10‐17 million cubic feet per month of natural gas between 2018 and 2020 (EIA, 2021c). In addition, World Oil Corporation is primarily a recycler of oil‐based waste. Used motor oil,  antifreeze,  and  oily  wastewater  is  collected  and  then  recycled  into  marine  diesel  fuel,  paving  and roofing asphalt blending components, and new anti‐freeze at the World Oil Refinery in Southgate, CA. As such, World Oil is providing a service to the oil and gas industry as opposed to being a producer or refiner of crude oil or natural gas.

The proposed Project would provide additional petroleum storage capacity but that would not affect local refinery operations. Refinery processing capacities are constrained by many factors including equipment design capacity, permit conditions, firing rates for combustion sources, and maintenance schedules of the various operating units within a refinery. Refinery processes are not influenced by storage capacity. In addition,  the  proposed  Project  would  not  debottleneck  the  facility  to  allow  for  greater  actual  crude throughput beyond the permitted limits through the existing pipelines, tanks, or loading racks. As such, the proposed Project would have little to no impact on the oil and gas supply of the state or nation and is not appealable under Coastal Act Section 30715(a)(1).

5.2  Consistency with the Port Master Plan
This ASR has been prepared to evaluate the proposed Project for consistency with the certified 1990 PMP, as amended.

APPX_000104
World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021  5‐4

5.2.1  Overview1990 Certified PMP
The PMP was first certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) in 1978 as being in conformance with the policies of Chapter 8 (Ports) of the CCA. The PMP was updated and certified in 1983 and again in 1990. Since 1990, numerous plan amendments have been adopted by the POLB and certified by the CCC.

Currently, the POLB is reviewing Amendment #20, which would serve as an independent PMP Update document that incorporates all certified amendments since 1990 and addresses current economic trends and foreseeable projects (POLB, 2019). Because PMP Amendment #20 has not been adopted or certified, it is only referenced in the following section to highlight possible changes to PMP goals or implementation recommendations that may be relevant to the proposed Project.

The Project site is located within Harbor Planning District 2 (Northeast Harbor), which is designated for primary Port facilities, Port related uses, hazardous cargo facilities, ancillary Port facilities, oil production, and navigation (POLB, 1990). The proposed construction and operation of two petroleum storage tanks at the existing World Oil Terminal at Pier C would be consistent with the Northeast Harbor’s allowable and permitted designated use of hazardous cargo facilities.

5.2.2  Port Development Goals
The 1990 Certified PMP identifies six long‐range planning goals and objectives for developing Port policies involving future Port development and expansion. Among the goals for Port development in Chapter IV of the PMP,Port‐wide development and expansion goals cited in the PMP , the proposed Project would support the following:

Goal 2: Encourage maximum use of facilities
The proposed Project would serve to maximize uses at the World Oil Terminal by expanding realigning their  storage  capacity  and  improving  to  increase  the  efficiency  of  terminal  operations.  However,  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  truck  loading  racks.  Furthermore,  the proposed Project would be consistent with tThe objectives of Port Development Goal 2 to rehabilitate under‐utilized terminal facilities and to improve the efficiency of cargo handling facilities would be met by the proposed Project.

Goal 5: Develop land for primary port facilities and port‐related uses The proposed Project would be constructed at World Oil’s an existing petroleum bulk station and terminal at Pier C. By expanding therealigning World Oil’s storage capacity of thisat the terminal, the proposed Project would be consistent with the objectives of Port Goal 5 to intensify existing development and to redevelop existing land within the Harbor District.

5.2.3  Plan Elements
The PMP provides guidance and direction for policy and business decisions affecting the future growth and development of the POLB. The six plan elements of the certified PMP include Public Access, Visual Quality, and Recreation/Tourist; Navigation; Environmental; Transportation/Circulation; Intermodal Rail Facilities;  and  Oil  Production  and  Operations.  Each  plan  element  outlines  specific  planning  goals  and issues, and provid
es a list of recommendations and/or an implementation program. The proposed PMP APPX_000105

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

September 2021 5-5
Amendment #20 would add two additional plan elements: Climate Change Adaptation and Terminal Operations (POLB, 2019).

The goals and implementation recommendations from the En vironmental Element and, Transportation/Circulation Element relevant to the proposed Project . , the proposed Climate Change Adaptation Element, and the proposed Terminal Operations Element would be relevant to the proposed tank installation project. These elements are discussed below.

Environmental Element
The Environmental Element identifies specific issues of concern regarding Port development and operations, which include air quality , habitat preservation/marine mitigation , hazardous waste , and permit processing. The following goal s and implementation recommendations from the Environmental Element would be applicable to the proposed Project:
 Goal 1: Minimize pollutant levels from existing and future sources.  Air Quality Recommendations:
– Limit idling of construction equipment and vehicles.
– Implement a watering program to minimize fugitive dust. – Use low sulfur fuel.

As discussed in Initial Study/Negative Declaration Section 4.3 (Air Quality), the proposed Project would be required to c omply with applicable Clean Air Action Plan construction best management practices and South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) control measures . The proposed Project would also comply with Special Condition AQ-1 in the Harbor Development Permit (see Section

5.3 [Special Conditions]). Theisse condition requirements would minimize daily construction emissions, which would ensure that emissions remain below significance thresholds.

The proposed Project would avoid substantial adverse effect s on the environment, and any short-term construction impact s would be less than significant . The proposed Project would not conflict with the planning goals or implementation recommendations of this element.

Transportation/Circulation Element
The purpose of the Transportation/Circulation Element is to: (1) identify existing transportation/circulation problems; (2) identify future transportation needs of the Port; and (3) present current plans and recommendations to ad dress the POLB’ s transportation demands. Goal 1 from the Transportation/Circulation Element would be applicable to the proposed Project:
 Goal 1: Provide for efficient circulation of vehicular and rail traffic within the Port (with minimum disruption to Port activities).

The proposed construction and operation of two petroleum storage tanks at the existing World Oil Terminal would not require the realignment of existing internal access roads, and the main public entrance to World Oil Terminal on Pico Avenue would be unaffected by the proposed Project.

Furthermore, the proposed Project does not include the modifications to any public roadways or driveways. Temporary construction-related vehicle trips over the 10 -month construction period would not be in numbers that could substantially diminish the performance of the circulation system. As a worst- case assumption, such as an atypical condition involving a pipe being service d, truck trips are estimated APPX_000106
World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021  5‐6
to increase 10 percent (three daily trucks) during proposed Project operations. ‐ case assumption, Project operation would result in a 10 percent increase in use of the truck loading racks, resulting in an estimated increase of three daily truck trips. These additional trips are sufficiently limited such that they would have negligible effects on transportation within the POLB. The proposed Project would not conflict with the planning goals or implementation recommendations of the Transportation/Circulation Element.

Terminal Operations Element (Proposed)
The Terminal Operations Element is a new plan element that would be added with certification of PMP Amendment #20. The purpose of this element is to ensure that the POLB meets the challenges of changing vessel sizes, terminal capacities, the intermodal supply chain, and advances in technology by modernizing and expanding Port facilities in ways that are consistent with the CCA (POLB, 2019). The element includes goals to increase the POLB’s marine terminal capacity to accommodate future demand.

The proposed project would be compatible with the Terminal Operations Element, as it would maximize current land uses at the World Oil Terminal by expanding storage capacity and improving the efficiency of terminal operations.

5.2.4  District Goals
The certified 1990 PMP identifies the following goal for the District 2, Northeast Harbor Planning District:
 Goal 1: Acquire private property and increase primary Port use.

The proposed tank construction would serve to expand realign World Oil’s storage capacity and improve the efficiency of terminal operations, and therefore would be consistent with this District goal. None of the proposed Project activities would impede or conflict with POLB goals of acquiring non‐Port property.

The proposed Project would be consistent with the certified PMP’s goal for the Northeast Harbor.

Proposed PMP Amendment #20 includes four plan ning goals for the Northeast Harbor Planning District (POLB, 2019). Of these four goals, the following would be applicable to the Project:
 Goal 4: Incorporate environmentally sustainable operations.

The proposed Project has been designed to avoid substantial adverse effects on the environment, and any  short‐term  construction  impacts  would  be  less  than  significant.  No  adverse  impacts  to  the environment would occur during operation. The proposed Project would be consistent with the proposed goals from PMP Amendment #20.

5.2.5   Risk Management Plan
In  1981,  the  California  Coastal  Commission  certified  the  Port’s  Risk  Management  Plan  (RMP)  as Amendment  No.  1  to  the  1978  certified  PMP,  which  provided  the  Long  Beach  Board  of  Harbor Commissioners the ability to issue coastal development permits for hazardous liquid bulk cargo facilities, as well as other developments in the Port that are in conformance with the Certified Port Master Plan (POLB, 1981). The RMP contains policies for the Port to apply in the permitting of new hazardous liquid bulk cargo developments or in the permitting of modifications or expansions to existing facilities involved with the transfer, handling, storage, and transport of hazardous liquid bulk cargoes. The approach taken is to define the casualties or accidents possible at the hazardous facility, in this case a spill from the largest container, and then calculate or derive from actual case data the extent of the hazard area produced, referred  to  as  the  “hazard  footprint”.  The  RMP  states  that  if  a  development  involves  the  storage  or APPX_000107

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

September 2021 5-7
transfer in liquid bulk form of any hazardous material, or if the development may places a vulnerable resource within an existing hazard footprint as described in the RMP, then a risk analysis is required (POLB, 1981). The RMP defines vulnerable resources as residential populations, recreational and visitor serving areas, high density working populations, and facilities with high total value, including cargo and equipment (POLB, 1983). The RMP mandates that the resulting hazard footprint of a development must not overlap any vulnerable resources. The boundary of a hazard footprint represents the distance at which the impacts of the worst probable events will be reduced to levels which are not likely to cause injury or property damage, as calculated and mapped by the Port.

In 2018, the POLB conducted a risk assessment of the World Oil Terminal, per the guidelines of the 2009 Application Document for Conducting Hazard Impact Assessments in Support of the Risk Management Plans of the Ports of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach ( Risk Assessment Report) . The Risk Assessment Report concluded that the largest hazard footprints and subsequent vulnerability zone can be defined by releasing the most volatile material stored in the World Oil Terminal (marine diesel) into the largest impoundment basin and performing the consequence analysis calculations under the POLB - prescribed weather conditions. The Risk Assessment Report de termined the p otential hazard zones by considering wind directions during a fire event from both within the containment wall and at the truck loading rack. When all combinations of wind directions are considered, the distance away from the containment wall and truck loading rack is referred to as a vulnerability zone. The vulnerability zone simply identifies the area that could be affected by a specific radiant flux level, but does not identify what area could be affected at one time. The vulnerability zone approach is used to identify the area that could affect a vulnerable resource . The Project site is not adjacent to a hazardous facility or vulnerable resources. The two additional 25,000 bbl storage tanks would be installed in the vacant northwest corner within an terminal’s existing 12-foot containment wall. After the implementation of the proposed Project, marine diesel oil would remain the most volatile material stored/handled at the terminal therefore the largest hazard footprint and subsequent vulnerability zone remains the same a nd would remain in conformance with the RMP.

5.3 Draft PMP Update
An update to the certified 1990 PMP U pdate (PMPU) is currently underway. In July 2019, the POLB released the Draft PMPU for public review. The PMP U would serve as an independent PMPU document that incorporates all certified amendments since 1990 and addresses current economic trends and foreseeable projects (POLB, 2019). Because the Draft PMPU has not yet been adopted by the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners or certified by the CCC, it is only referenced in the following sections to highlight potential changes to PMPU goals or implementation recommendations that may be relevant to the proposed Project.

Under the Draft PMPU, the proposed Project site would be within the Northeast Harbor Planning District (District 2).

5.3.1 Draft PMP Update Port Development Goals
The Draft PMPU currently identifies four long-range planning goals and corresponding objectives for Port development that are designed to maintain flexibility, respond to Port tenant needs, and allow the Port to respond effectively to requirements dictated by national and international economic trends. Among the proposed goals for Port development in the D raft PMPU, the proposed Project would support the following:

APPX_000108

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

September 2021 5-8
Goal 2: Develop Modern Terminal Facilities with Efficient Operations The proposed Project would construct two additi onal tanks in the generally vacant northwest corner of the existing terminal providing additional storage capacity to increase the efficiency of terminal operations. The new tanks would supplant the terminal’s existing tanks that provide crude oil storage to the World Oil Refinery in South Gate. The existing tanks would then be removed from dedicated refinery service and become available for lease to third-party vendors. Objectives under Goal 2 would be met by the proposed Project.

5.3.2 Draft PMP Update Plan Elements
In addition to the long-range planning goals addressed above, the Draft PMPU currently also includes plan elements, which provide the policy framework for future POLB development and Port -wide guidance on major operational/functional areas and policy areas. The eight plan elements of the proposed Draft PMPU include Public Access and Recreation; Environment and Sustainability; Climate Change Adaptation; Visual Quality; Transportation and Circulation; Navigation; Terminal Operations; Rail Operations; and Oil Operations. Each of these plan elements consist of planning goals and issu es and recommended actions.

Of the eight plan elements currently listed in the Draft PMPU, Environment and Sustainability, Climate Change Adaptation, and Terminal Operations are discussed below.

Environment and Sustainability Element
The Environmental and Sustainability Element embodies the POLB’s ongoing efforts to preserve and enhance the environment through its leadership in innovative goods movement, natural resources stewardship, and sustainability. The Environment and Sustainabil ity Element reflects the Green Port Policy, which was adopted by the Board of Harbor Commissioners in January 2005.

Of the six goals currently identified for the Environment and Sustainability Element, the proposed Project would support the following planning goal:

Goal 1: Reduce environmental and health impacts from Port operations sources.

As discussed in Initial Study/Negative Declaration Section 4.3 (Air Quality), the proposed Project would be required to c omply with applicable Clean Air Action Plan construction best management practices and South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) control measures. The proposed Project would also comply with Special Condition AQ -1 in the Harbor Development Permit (see Section

5.3 [Special Conditions]). This condition would minimize daily construction emissions, which would ensure that emissions remain below significance thresholds.

The proposed Project would avoid substantial adverse effect s on the environment, and any short-term construction impacts would be less than significant . The proposed Project would not conflict with the planning goals of this element.

Climate Change Adaptation Element
The Climate Change Adaptation Element would be a new plan element which outlines the Port’s goals for climate change adaptation and coastal resiliency. The element incorporates the strategies identified in the POLB’s 2016 Climate Adaptation and Coastal Resiliency Plan (CRP) that address climate change impacts through existing POLB policies, plans, and guidelines, including incorporating climate change analysis and considerations to the POLB ’s development permitting process. Of the three goals identified APPX_000109

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

September 2021 5-9
for the Climate Change Adaptation E lement, the proposed Project would support the following planning goal:
 Goal 2: Safeguard vulnerable assets to minimize impact of damage or loss.

As discussed in Initial Study Section 4.10 (Hydrology and Water Quality), the proposed petroleum storage tanks would be constructed and operated within the existing 12.5 to 13-feet high containment wall that is designed to hold the largest tanks capacity (90,000 barrels ) plus a 100 -year storm event. The containment wall would continue to offer the same level of adequate protection for the proposed tanks as they do for the existing tanks. Although a flood control system is not in place at the P roject site, air driven pumps may be used to divert water over the containment wall during a flood event. According to the 2016 CRP, t he 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 four feet with the combination of sea level rise and a 100 -year storm event. With the infrastructure protection provided by the existing containment wall and air driven pumps, the proposed P roject would be compatible with the Climate Change Adaptation Element.

Terminal Operations Element
The Terminal Operations Element would be a new plan element that details the POLB’s need to accommodate forecast deman d for containerized and non -containerized cargo . T his element would ensure that the POLB meets the challenges of changing vessel sizes, terminal capacities, the intermodal supply chain, and advances in technology by modernizing and expanding Port facilities in ways that are consistent with the CCA (POLB, 2019). The element currently includes goals to increase the POLB’s marine terminal capacity to accommodate future demand. Of the five goals currently identified for the Terminal Operations Element, the proposed Project would support the following planning goal:
 Goal 4: Modernize container terminals to improve operational efficiency.

The proposed Project would be compatible with the Terminal Operations Element, as it would maximize current land uses at the World Oil Terminal by providing additional storage capacity and improving the efficiency of terminal operations.

5.3.3 Draft PMP Update District Goals
Under the Draft PMPU, t he proposed Project would be located within the Northeast Planning District (District 2 ). The D raft PMPU currently includes four planning goals for the Northeast Harbor Planning District. Of the four goals, Goal 4 would be applicable to the Project:
 Goal 4: Incorporate environmentally sustainable operations.

The proposed Project has been designed to avoid substantial adverse effect s on the environment, and any short- term construction impacts would be less than significant . No adverse impacts to the environment would occur during operation. The proposed Project would be consistent with Goal 4.

5.3.4 Draft PMP Update Permitted Land and Water Uses
The permitted uses for the Northeast Planning District would include the following permitted land uses:
primary port facilities, port-related facilities, maritime support facilities, hazardous cargo facilities, oil and gas production facilities, utilities, visitor-serving commercial facilities, and institutional.

APPX_000110

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

September 2021 5-10
The proposed Project would continue to be consistent with the Northeast Ha rbor’s allowable and permitted use of hazardous cargo facilities.

5.43 Special Conditions
In instances where the proposed Project presents no significant impact and no mitigation is required, there may be additional ‘Special Conditions’ imposed on the project by the POLB that would further lessen a ‘no significant impact’ below a significance threshold or potentially eliminate an impact. These Special Conditions would be implemented as required in the Harbor Development Permit (HDP), project specifications, or other applicable documents governing site use and or facility operations. Special Conditions are consistent with the Green Port Policy, C lean Air Action Plan, and the Water Resources Action Plan.

Special Conditions are the federal, State, and local regulations and permit requirements, environmental measures, and/or assumptions that are applied to proposed projects in the POLB on a typical basis and are, therefore, considered to be part of project descriptions. All applicable Special Conditions proposed by the Port or regulatory agencies would be implemented as required in tenant lease agreements, project specifications, or other applicable documents governing site use and or facility operations. Special Conditions are consistent with the Green Port Policy, the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan, and the Water Resources Action Plan.

Special Conditions are assumed to be part of the proposed p roject for analysis purposes, as opposed to mitigation measures, which are added to lessen a significant impact after analyses have been completed.

The following Special Conditions for Air Quality, Biological Resources , and Geology and Soils would be incorporated as part of the proposed Project to ensure that P roject co nstruction further reduces construction emissions and complies with the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the design recommendations of the geotechnical investigation performed at the site ( Albus-Keefe & Associates Geotechnical Update Report, 2018). Included below are the various means used to implement the Special Conditions as well as the timing for implementation.

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 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 Applicant 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.
 During construction within the nesting season, activities will be periodically monitored to ensure that no new nest building occurs within work areas.

APPX_000111

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

September 2021 5-11
• The Applicant shall provide weekly reports describing monitoring actions, relevant observations, and any protective actions taken to the POLB Director of Environmental Planning.

Special Condition GEO-1. Geotechnical Recommendations . To ensure impacts from ground shakin g, liquefaction, unstable soils, and expansive soils would be reduced to the extent feasible, the final Project design shall implement the geotechnical recommendations provided in the Albus -Keefe & Associates Geotechnical Update Report, 2018. The final Project design shall be reviewed for consistency by a qualified geotechnical engineer prior to Project implementation and provide a letter stating that the plans correctly incorporate the geotechnical recommendations.

APPX_000112
APPX_000113

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

September 2021 6-1

6. Report Preparation
A consultant team headed by Aspen Environmental Group prepared this document under the direction of the Port of Long Beach. The preparers and technical reviewers of this document are presented below.

Lead Agency
Port of Long Beach
Jennifer Blanchard, Project Manager ......................................................... Lead Agency Contact, Environmental Planning Matthew Arms, Director ........................................................................................... Environmental Planning Dawn A. McIntosh, Deputy City Attorney ............................................. Long Beach City Attorney’s Office Allyson Teramoto, Manager of CEQA/NEPA Practices .......... Environmental Planning Dan Ramsay, Manager of Environmental Remediation ........ Environmental Planning James Vernon, Manager of Water Quality PracticesAssistant Director Environmental Planning Dylan Porter, Manager of Water Quality PracticesSenior Environmental Specialist Environmental Planning Justin Luedy, Environmental Specialist Associate ........................ Environmental Planning Shashank Patil, Senior Port Planner ............................................................. Transportation Planning Tony Chan, Ph.D., Office Systems Analyst ............................................ Master Planning

Project Management and Document Production
Aspen Environmental Group – Prime Contractor
Lisa Blewitt, Senior Associate .............................................................................. Project Manager, Noise William Walters, PE, Senior Associate ....................................................... Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy Chris Huntley, Vice President, Biological Team Lead ............... Biological Resources (Reviewer) Brigit Harvey, MS, Wildlife Biologist ............................................................ Biological Resources James Allan, PhD, RPA, Cultural Resources Manager .............. Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources Lauren DeOliveira MS, Cultural Resource Specialist ................. Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources Stephanie Tang, Environmental Scientist .............................................. Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and
Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and
Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities and
Service Systems, Wildfire, Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Scott Debauche, CEP, Environmental Planner
................................. Transportation
Tatiana Inouye, Environmental Planner .................................................. Application Summary Report ENGEO – Geotechnical Subcontractor
James Thurber, CHG, CEG, PG, Principal ................................................. Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality (Groundwater)
Jennifer Knipper, Staff Geologist ..................................................................... Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality (Ground Water)
APPX_000114
APPX_000115

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

September 2021 7-1

7. References
ADI Analytics. 2021. Regulations to drive U.S renewable diesel capacity growth through 2025. [Online]:
https://adi-analytics.com/2020/02/10/regulations-to-drive-u-s-renewable-diesel-capacity-growth- through-2025/. Accessed July 2021.

Albus-Keefe (Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.). 2018. Geotechnical Update Report, Proposed Tanks, 1405 Pier “C” Street, Long Beach, California. May 2.

CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2007. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area – State of California. [Online]: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6827/ fhszl06_1_map.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2020.

CalRecycle. 2018. History of California Solid Waste Law, 1985-1989. July 27. [Online]:
https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/laws/legislation/calhist/1985to1989. Accessed May 4, 2020.

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013a. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September. [Online]: https://www.gsweventcenter.com/ Draft_SEIR_References/2013_09_Tech_Noise_Supp.pdf. Accessed March 6, 2020. _____. 2013b. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September. [Online]:
http://website.dot.ca.gov/env/noise/docs/tcvgm-sep2013.pdf. Accessed March 6, 2020. _____. 2019. List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Microsoft Excel digital file.

Obtained from: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed April 28, 2020.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2016. SIP Emissions Projection Data. [Online]:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/2017/emssumcat.php. Accessed May 2021. _____. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November. [Online]: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed April 2020.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2020. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5, Version 5.2.14. [Online]: http://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data/.

Accessed April 23, 2020.

CGS (California Geological Survey). 1999a. Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, CGS Special Publication #42.
_____.1999b. Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Long Beach Quadrangle. March 25. [Online]:
http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/LONG_BEACH/maps/ozn_longb.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2020.
_____. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Long Beach Quadrangle. [Online]:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Tsunami/Maps/Tsunami_Inundation_LongBeac h_Quad_LosAngeles.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2020.
_____. 2010. San Gabriel Valley P-C Region Showing MRZ-2 Areas and Active Mine Operations. [Online]:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_209/. Accessed April 28, 2020. _____. 2020. Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Ground Motion Interpolator (2008). [Online]:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ground-motion-interpolator-for-embedding.htm. Accessed May 4, 2020.

APPX_000116

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

September 2021 7-2
City of Long Beach. 1995. Chapter 21.33 Industrial Districts. [Online]: https://library.municode.com/ca/ long_beach/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT21ZO_CH21.33INDI. Accessed April 28, 2020. _____. 2007. Construction & Demolition (C&D) Debris Recycling Program. [Online]:
http://www.longbeach.gov/lbds/building/cd/. Accessed April 27, 2020. _____. 2013. City of Long Beach General Plan, Mobility Element. [Online]: http://www.longbeach.gov/ globalassets/lbds/media-library/documents/orphans/mobility- element/320615_lbds_mobility_element_web. Accessed April 28, 2020. _____. 2019. City of Long Beach General Plan, Land Use Element. December. [Online]:
http://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-library/documents/planning/advance/ lueude/land-use-element-final-adopted-december-2019. Accessed March 6, 2020. _____. 2020a. City of Long Beach Zoning and Land Use App. [Online]:
https://longbeachca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=17b68e7082ef4a4ea8b a6b0d04729758. Accessed April 28, 2020.
_____. 2020b. SB 743 Implementation for the City of Long Beach. May 6.

City of Rancho Palos Verdes. 2018. Final Draft Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan. [Online]: https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13211/NCCPHCP.

Accessed April 23, 2020.

County of Los Angeles Airport Land Use Commission. 2003. Long Beach Airport – Airport Influence Area. [Online]: http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-long-beach.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2020.

DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2016. Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2016. [Online]: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Maps-and-Data.aspx. Accessed May 5, 2020.
_____. 2020. CalGEM GIS Well Finder. [Online]: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/ #openModal/-118.20986/33.77431/17. Accessed April 28, 2020.

Dougherty, John. 2020. Personnel Communication between John Dougherty, World Oil Terminal Manager and Aspen Environmental Group during the site visit conducted March 3, 2020.

DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2020. DTSC Envirostor Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. [Online]: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporttype =CORTESE&site_type=CSITES,OPEN,FUDS,CLOSE&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOU S+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST. Accessed June 17, 2020.

DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2014. SGMA Groundwater Management. [Online]:
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management.

Accessed May 5, 2020.
_____. 2020. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. [Online]: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/ final/. Accessed May 5, 2020.

EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2021a. Article: U.S. oil and natural gas production to fall in 2021, then rise in 2022. January 14. [Online]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id =46476. Accessed June 2021.

APPX_000117

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

September 2021 7-3
_____. 2021b. Petroleum & Other Liquids, Data Tab, California Field Production of Crude Oil. [Online]:
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpca1&f=m. Accessed June 2021.
_____. 2021c. Natural Gas, Data Tab, California Natural Gas Marketed Production. [Online]:
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9050ca2m.htm. Accessed June 2021.

Environmental Data Resources (EDR). 2020. EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck - World Oil Terminals Long Beach. March.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2008. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search by Address. September 26. [Online]: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=port% 20of%20long%20beach#searchresultsanchor. Accessed May 5, 2020.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. Final Report. August. [Online]: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/ handbook/. Accessed March 6, 2020.

FTA (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA Report No. 0123. [Online]: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/ transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed March 6, 2020.

Hayward Baker. 2015. Vibro Piers. June. PDF file.

Keller. 2020. Vibro stone columns (vibro replacement). [Online]: https://www.keller-na.com/expertise/ techniques/vibro-stone-columns-vibro-replacement. Accessed April 24, 2020.

LACSD (Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts). 2020. Wastewater Treatment Districts. [Online]:
https://www.lacsd.org/services/wastewatersewage/facilities_information/wwtreatmentplant/def ault.asp. Accessed May 4, 2020.

LARWQCB (Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2018. Order No. R4-2018-0125, General NPDES Permit No. CAG994004, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Groundwater from Construction and Project Dewatering to Surface Waters in Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Adopted on September 13. [Online]:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/
losangeles/board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_orders/r4-2018-0125/OrderNoR4-2018- 0125(Order).pdf. Accessed May 5, 2020.

LBFD (Long Beach Fire Department). 2020. Station Locations. [Online]: http://www.longbeach.gov/fire/ about-us/station-locations/. Accessed April 30, 2020.

LBMC (Long Beach Municipal Code). 2020a. Municipal Code. Codified through Ordinance No. ORD-20-004.

Supplement 27. Update 2. Online content updated February 17, 2020. [Online]:
https://library.municode.com/ca/long_beach/codes/municipal_code. Accessed April 23, 2020. _____. 2020b. Supplement 27 Update 2. February 17. [Online]: https://library.municode.com/ca/ long_beach/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT8HESA_CH8.80NO. Accessed March 6, 2020.

LBPD (Long Beach Police Department). 2020. West Patrol Division. [Online]: http://www.longbeach.gov/ police/about-the-lbpd/bureaus/patrol-bureau/west-patrol-division/. Accessed April 30, 2020.

LBUSD (Long Beach Unified School District). 2020. About – Long Beach Unified School District. [Online]:
https://www.lbschools.net/District/. Accessed April 30, 2020.

APPX_000118

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

September 2021 7-4
Matrix (Matrix PDM Engineering). 2019. API 650 Foundation Design Drawings. Sheet 3 of 3: Foundation Notes. World Oil. January 18.

MBC and Merkel & Associates. 2016. 2013-2014 Biological Surveys of Long Beach and Los Angeles Harbors.

Prepared for the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. June 1. [Online]:
https://www.portoflosangeles.org/pola/pdf/biobaseline2014.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2020.

Moffatt & Nichol. 2007. Tsunami Hazard Assessment for the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles Final Report. April. [Online]: https://kentico.portoflosangeles.org/getmedia/e3955258-c8a7-4a95-bff0- e3a4bc1d573b/Appendix_M_Tsunami_Hazard_Assessment. Accessed May 6, 2020.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. [Online]:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf. Accessed May 2020.

OPC Guidance (Ocean Protection Council). 2018. State of California’s Sea-Level Rise Guidance 2018 Update.

OPR (California Office of Planning and Research). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December. [Online]: https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/technical-advisories.html. Accessed June 2020.

POLB (Port of Long Beach). 1981. Risk Management Plan, An Amendment to the Certified Port Master Plan.
_____. 1990. Port Master Plan, Update 1990, An Amendment to the 1978 and 1983 Port Master Plans. [Online]: https://www.polb.com/port-info/mission-vision/#master-plan-update. Accessed April 24, 2020.
_____. 2016a. Port of Long Beach Climate Adaptation and Coastal Resiliency Plan. [Online]:
https://www.slc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/POLB.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2021. _____. 2016b. Port of Long Beach Community Grants Program and Investment Plan. Port of Long Beach. _____. 2019. Draft Port Master Plan Update 2020. July. [Online]: https://www.polb.com/port-info/ mission-vision/#master-plan-update. Accessed May 12, 2020. _____. 2020. Environment – Air – Program Details. [Online]: https://www.polb.com/environment/air/#air- program-details. Accessed May 2021.
_____. 2021. Email RE: World Oil Risk Analysis, from Tony Chan, Hazards Section, to Jennifer Blanchard, Environmental Specialist Associate. May 12.

QUEST. 2018. POLB RMP Guideline Analysis World Oil’s Ribost Terminal. June.

SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2003. SCAQMD White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts From Air Pollution, Appendix D – Cumulative Impact Analysis Requirements Pursuant to CEQA, p.D-3. August. [Online]: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/ default-source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts-working-group/cumulative- impacts-white-paper-appendix.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed May 2021. _____. 2009. Appendix C - Mass Rate LST Look-up Table. [Online]: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up- tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed May 2020.

APPX_000119

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

September 2021 7-5
_____. 2017. PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE “N” For use in conjunction with the RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR RULES 1401, 1401.1, AND 212, VERSION 8.1. [Online]: http://www.aqmd.gov/ docs/default-source/permitting/rule-1401-risk-assessment/attachmentn-v8-1.pdf?sfvrsn=4.

Accessed May 2020
_____. 2019a. South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, last revised April 2019. [Online]:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf. Accessed April 2020May 2021.
_____. 2020. SCAQMD Response to the Communities for a Better Environment comments on the Proposed Title V Significant Permit Revision for Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co. LLS. June 23, 2020. Provided by J. Wong, personal communication, January 20, 2021. _____. 2021a. SCAQMD Rule 205 Expiration of Permits to Construct. [Online]: http://www.aqmd.gov/ docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-ii/rule-205.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed April 1, 2021. _____. 2021b. Email Subject: RE: Tank Project Analysis Confirmation, from Tom Liebel, Senior Engineering Manager, South Coast AQMD to Jennifer Blanchard, Environmental Specialist Associate, Environmental Planning, Port of Long Beach. May 28.
_____. 2021c. Email Subject: Ribost: Tank Project Analysis Confirmation, from Tom Liebel, Senior Engineering Manager, South Coast AQMD to Jennifer Blanchard, Environmental Specialist Associate, Environmental Planning, Port of Long Beach. June 16. _____. 2019b. South Coast AQMD Applications Evaluations and Calculations, Permit to Construct Evaluation, Application 614274. Approved 8/5/19.
_____. 2020a. South Coast AQMD Permit to Construct, Application 614274. Approved 1/2/20. _____. 2020b. South Coast AQMD Permit to Construct, Application 614275. Approved 1/2/20.

SCE (Southern California Edison). 2020. Electric Company ESG/Sustainability Quantitative Information.

October 30. [Online]: https://www.edison.com/content/dam/eix/documents/sustainability/eix- esg-pilot-quantitative-section-sce.pdf. Accessed May 2021.

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2020. GeoTracker Database. [Online]: http://geotracker. waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed June 17, 2020.

The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2020. All About Birds. [Online]: https://www.allaboutbirds.org/news/.

Accessed April 23, 2020.

U.S. Ecology. 2021. U.S. Ecology Vernon. [Online]: https://www.usecology.com/location/us-ecology- vernon. Accessed February 11, 2021.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March. [Online]: http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/levels74.htm. Accessed March 6, 2020. _____. 2020. U.S. EPA AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources Section 7.1 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks. [Online]: https://www.epa.gov/air- emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-fifth-edition-volume-i-chapter-7-liquid-storage-0.

Accessed May 2021.

APPX_000120

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

September 2021 7-6
USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2020. Interactive ArcGIS mapping of U.S. Forest Service Wildfire Hazard Potential website. [Online]: https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useexisting =1&layers=fc0ccb504be142b59eb16a7ef44669a3. Accessed May 1, 2020.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2019a. California Natural Community Conservation Plans. [Online]:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline. Accessed April 23, 2020. _____. 2019b. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). Habitat Conservation Plans. [Online]:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/conservationPlan/region/summary?region=8&type=HCP. Accessed April 23, 2020.
_____. 2020. National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper. [Online]: https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/ wetlands/. Accessed April 23, 2020.

USGS and CGS (U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey). 2015. GIS data for the Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States. [Online]: https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/ earthquake-hazards/faults?qt-science_support_page_related_con=4#qt- science_support_page_related_con. Accessed May 4, 2020.

Uslu et al. 2010. Tsunami Assessment Special Series: Vol. 2 Distant tsunami threats to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California. [Online]: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/ 11108. Accessed April 2021.

World Oil Corp. 2021. Sustainability Beyond the Surface. [Online]: https://worldoilcorp.com/refining/.

Accessed May 2021.

World Oil Terminals. 2019. Application for Harbor Development Permit, Ribost Terminal LLC, DBA World Oil Terminals. August 14.

WRD (Water Replenishment District of Southern California). 2016. Groundwater Basins Master Plan. [Online]: https://www.wrd.org/sites/pr/files/GBMP_FinalReport_Text%20and%20 Appendicies.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2020.

Yorke (Yorke Engineering, LLC). 2021. Application for Permit to Construct/Permit to Operate – Two Additional Petroleum Storage Tanks. Ribost Terminal, LLC. 1405 Pier “C” Street, Long Beach, CA 90802, SCAQMD Facility ID: 111238. February.

APPX_000121

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

September 2021 8-1

8. Responses to Comments
The public review period for a draft environmental document is a critical part of the CEQA public partici - pation process. It provides the opportunity for other responsible agencies and interested parties to analyze the proposed project and provide any comments they might have on the adequacy of the environmental document. The prepared responses to comments are intended to provide complete explanations to the commenters and to improve the overall understanding of the project. POLB originally circulated a Draft IS/ND for the proposed project for a 30 -day public review period from October 7, 2020 through Novem- ber 5, 2020, but extended the public review period to 45 days, ending on November 20, 2020. During the 45-day public review period, POLB received 20 comment letters from a total of 8 agencies, groups/organizations, and individuals. This section provides responses to the comments received and has been organized by assigning each commenter a letter code based on the name of commenter or affiliation (e.g., California Department of Transportation, District 7 is given the letter code “CADOT”). An abbreviation for the name of the organization is used if the commenter is represented by a law firm.

Comments received are bracketed and numbered and are referred to by the Commenter Letter Code and Response Number. Each comment letter is followed by POLB’s written responses to the comments in that letter. Due to the size of the attachments referenced and submitted in the Comment Letters from Earthjustice (EJ) and Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (SAFERCA), the attachments are not included in this section, however, are available online on the POLB website at https://www.polb.com/ceqa. The comments received did not result in any substantive modifications to the analyses in the IS/ND. The following table lists commenters that submitted written comments on the IS/ND.

Commenter Letter Code Comment Codes Date
Agencies
California Coastal Commission CCC CCC-1 to CCC-2 November 20, 2020 California Department of
Transportation, District 7 CADOT CADOT-1 to CADOT-3 October 22, 2020 City of Paramount CP CP-1 October 27, 2020
Organizations
Citizens Coalition for a Safe
Community CCSC CCSC-1 to CCSC-15
October 11, 2020 (3)
October 15, 2020 (2)
October 28, 2020
October 29, 2020
Earthjustice, et al. EJ EJ-1 to EJ-51
October 20, 2020
November 20, 2020
March 16, 2021
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians – Kizh Nation GBKN GBKN-1 October 28, 2020
Safe Fuel and Energy Resources
California SFERCA SFERCA-1 to SFERCA-43
October 8, 2020
October 9, 2020 (2)
October 29, 2020
November 20, 2020
Individuals
Dianne Flowers DF DF-1 to DF-2 November 20, 2020
APPX_000122

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

September 2021 8-2

This page intentionally blank.

APPX_000123

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

September 2021 8-3
CCC – California Coastal Commission

CCC-1
CCC-2
APPX_000124

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

September 2021 8-4

APPX_000125

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

September 2021 8-5
Response to Comments – CCC
California Coastal Commission
Dani Ziff, Coastal Planner
November 20, 2020
Response to Comment CCC-1
The comment provides introductory text to describe the California Coastal Commission’s understanding of the project, and states that pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30715(a)(1), the proposed Project ’s harbor/coastal development permit may be appealable to the Coastal Commission. The comment also states that a Port Master Plan (PMP) amendment would be required if the proposed development is not currently contemplated in the certified PMP pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30711.

California Coastal Act (CCA) Section 30715(a)(1) is specific to “developments for the storage, transmission, and processing of liquefied natural gas and crude oil in such quantities as would have a significant impact upon the oil and gas supply of the state or nation or both the state and nation.” The proposed Project would construct two new petroleum storage tanks to support existing operations at the World Oil Terminal by increasing the efficiency of terminal operations and allowing more tanks to be avail able for lease by third-party vendors. As described in Section 5.1.2 (Chapter 8 of CCA), t he relatively small size of the proposed storage tanks (i.e., 25,000 bbl) would not have a significant impact on State or national oil and gas supply. The U.S. produced around 10-12 million bbl per day of crude oil and 80 -100 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas between 2018 and 2020 (EIA, 2021a). California produced 10-14 million bbl per month of crude oil (EIA, 2021b) and 10-17 million cubic feet per month of natural gas between 2018 and 2020 (EIA, 2021c). In addition, World Oil Corporation primarily recycles oil- based waste including used motor oil, antifreeze, and oily wastewater. The waste is then recycled into motor oil, marine diesel fuel, new antifreeze, and paving and roofing asphalt blending components. The asphalt blending components are used at the World Oil Refinery in South Gate, California. As such, World Oil is providing a service to the oil and gas industry as opposed to being a producer or refiner of crude oil or natural gas.

As described in IS/ND Section 2.11 (Operations and Maintenance), t he proposed Project w ould not debottleneck the facility to allow for greater actual crude throughput beyond the permitted limits through the existing pipelines, tanks, or loading racks. The proposed Project would provide additional petroleum storage capacity, but that would not affect local refinery operations. Refinery processing capacities are constrained by many factors including equipment design capacity, permit conditions, firing rates for combustion sources, and maintenance schedules of the various operating units within a refinery. Refinery processes are not influenced by storage capacity. As such , the proposed Project would have little to no impact on the oil and gas supply of the state or nation and is not appealable under CCA Section 30715(a)(1).

The World Oil Terminal is a privately-owned terminal which was built in 1964, prior to the establishment of the CCA and the adoption and certification of the POLB’s initial PMP. The PMP was first adopted and certified in 1978. It was under this PMP that the Project area was termed the Northeast Harbor District and its permitted uses were designated to Primary Port, Petroleum Import/Export, Port -related, and Oil Production. Petroleum Import/Export was defined as “operations and terminals engaged in the loading/unloading, storage and transfer of crude, and bulk refined petroleum products”. The 1983 certified PMPU replaced the term “Petroleum I mport/Export” with “Hazardous Cargo Facility ,” but the definition remains similar . “Hazardous Cargo Facility” continues to be a permitted use in the current certified 1990 PMPU. Therefore, the proposed Project would not require an amendment to the certified APPX_000126
World Oil Tank Installation Project
Final Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report

September 2021  8‐6
1990 PMPU as it would be located within an area of the Port (i.e., Northeast Harbor) that allows hazardous cargo facilities and oil production as permitted uses (see IS/ND Section 5.2.1, Consistency with the Port Master  Plan).  As  described  in  IS/ND  Section  2.9  (Project  Overview),  the  proposed  Project  would  be constructed entirely within the existing World Oil Te rminal and would serve to realign storage capacity and improve efficiency of the terminal’s current operations. The proposed Project would be compatible with the site’s existing land use and would be allowable under the Northeast Harbor’s permitted uses identified in the 1990 certified PMPU. A PMP amendment would not be required for the proposed Project.

Response to Comment CCC‐2
This comment requests that the IS/ND address the potential for flooding impacts to be exacerbated by future sea level rise (SLR). This comment also suggests that the proposed Project be assessed using best available science for a medium‐high/extreme sea level rise scenario.

In  2016,  the  POLB  completed  a  Port‐wide  Climate  Adaptation  an d  Coastal  Resiliency  Plan  (CRP)  which draws on the best available data on climate science and the potential effects in California (data as of April 2016).  The  CRP  relied  heavily  on  California  Climate  Change  Center,  a  division  of  the  California  Energy Commission’s  Third  Assessment  on  the  science  of  climate  change,  the  California  Natu ral  Resource Agency’s 2009 California Adaptation Strategy, peer‐reviewed publications from the U.S. Global Change Research  Program,  and  other  research  organizations.  Based  on  the  findings  of  the  reports  and publications, the POLB selected a 16‐inch, 36‐inch, and 55‐inch SLR inundation scenarios – including each under daily high ti
de and extreme tide and 100‐year storm event to analyze potential future impacts. The 36‐inch sea level rise scenario plus 100‐year storm surge was selected as the most appropriate scenario (medium‐high) to analyze for developments with an expected life ending in year 2070 (50‐year lifespan) and the most‐likely projection for the ye
ar 2100. A discussion of the CRP has been added to the IS/ND Section 4.10(d) (Hydrology and Water Quality).

Under the medium‐high SLR scenario the proposed Project’s site could experience temporary inundation of zero to 4 feet by year 2070 (2016 CRP). The CRP ’s SLR medium‐high estimation aligns with the Ocean Protection Council’s 2018 State of California’s Sea‐Level Rise Guidance (OPC  Guidance) medium‐high risk SLR estimations for projects with an expected life ending in year 2070 (OPC, 2018). The OPC Guidance states  that  in  the  medium‐high  risk  scenario,  there  is  a  1‐ in‐200  chance,  or  0.5%  probability,  that  SLR meets or exceeds an estimated inundation of approximately 2.9 to 3.3 feet by year 2070 (OPC, 2018).

Under the most extreme SLR projection (55‐inch plus 100‐year storm surge) the proposed Project could experience zero to 6 feet of temporary inundation by 2070 (POLB, 2016a).

As  stated  in  IS/ND  Se
ction  2.9  (Project  Description),  the  proposed  tanks  would  be  constructed  and installed within the existing reinforced concrete containment wall that varies between approximately 12.5 to 13‐feet in height and wall thickness tapering from approximately 1.5 feet wide at the base to 1 foot wide  at  the  top.  Although  the  facili
ty  may  experience  temporary  inundation  under  a  medium‐ high/extreme SLR scenario, the potential for flooding impacts to be exacerbated by sea level rise in the future is less than significant due to the size of the existing containment wall.  Also, as  noted in IS/ND Section 4.10(d) (Hydrology and Water Quality), air driven pumps may be used to divert water over the containment  wall  during  a  flood  event.  With  the  infrastructure  protection  provided  by  the  existing containment wall and air driven pumps, the proposed Project would not create a new significant impact from sea leve
l rise.

APPX_000127

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

September 2021 8-7
CADOT – California Department of Transportation, District 7

CADOT-1
CADOT-2
APPX_000128

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

September 2021 8-8

CADOT-2,
cont.

CADOT-3
APPX_000129

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

September 2021 8-9
Responses to Comments – CADOT
California Department of Transportation, District 7
Miya Edmonson, IGR/CEQA Branch Chief
October 22, 2020

Response to Comment CADOT-1
The comment includes introductory remarks and summarizes Caltrans’ understanding of the proposed Project. No further response is required.

Response to Comment CADOT-2
The comment provides Caltrans’ mission statement and references Senate Bill 743 which mandates use of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the primary metric in identifying transportation impacts from automobiles under CEQA. The comment also refers to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research for CEQA updates, the Caltrans VMT-focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG), dated May 20, 2020, and the Caltrans Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance, prepared in July 2020, for traffic impact analysis guidance and information. As described in Section 4.17(b) Transportation) the proposed Project’s potential transportation impacts were reviewed per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(3) and the City of Long Beach SB 743 Implementation Plan, and is recognized to cause a less than significant impact. The comment confirms that the proposed Project would have no permanent effect on the existing VMT in the Project area. The POLB will continue to refer to the State CEQA Guidelines and Caltrans’ TISG for the use of VMT as the metric for analysis of automobile traffic for future projects.

Response to Comment CADOT-3
The comment states that if the proposed Project requires the use of oversized-transport vehicles on State highways, then a Caltrans transportation permit would be required. As described in Section 4.17 (Trans - portation), the proposed Project may require oversized truck trips to deliver large construction equipment and materials to the site. If needed, all required permits would be obtained by the Applicant and/or their contractor from Caltrans and local jurisdictions. Construction -related trips may occur during peak commute periods, but on average, trips would avoid peak commute periods to the maximum extent feasible and would occur temporarily during construction.

APPX_000130

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

September 2021 8-10
CP – City of Paramount

CP-1
APPX_000131

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

September 2021 8-11
Response to Comments – CP
City of Paramount
John Carver
Planning Director
October 27, 2020
Response to Comment CP-1
The comment expresses concern regarding increased trucking to the World Oil Refinery in South Gate, specifically the resulting increases in air quality emission in the region. The comment also inquires about plans the POLB has to require alternatives to diesel trucks as part of this project and funding opportunities to 710-adjacent cities for resident education regarding Port impacts and mitigation.

The proposed Project adds two additional petroleum storage tanks within the existing World Oil Terminal at t he POLB. As described in the Section 2.11 (Operations and Maintenance), truck trips are not anticipated to increase as a result of the proposed Project , however, as a conservative, worst-case assumption to account for atypical operations such as when a pip eline is out of service, a 10 percent increase (or three additional trucks) in truck trips is assumed. Diesel-fueled trucks were assumed in the analysis, and as shown in the air quality emissions estimate in IS/ND Appendix A and the results in Table

4.3-2, the emissions from on-road heavy-duty trucks and overall emissions from the proposed Project are well below the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s regional significance thresholds, nor would the proposed Project result in impact to traffic. As such, mitigation measures are not required or proposed for the proposed Project. Also, please see Response to Comment DF-3 regarding general air quality in the Port area and how it has improved over the past few decades.

The POLB, recognizing that its environmental impacts have had years to accumulate, and even the POLB’s strategic and aggressive mitigation efforts do not fully address the cumulative effects of Port operations on neighboring communities, established the Community Grants Program in March 201 7, allocating an initial $46.4 million funding amount for an implementation period of 12 to 15 years for three specific programs for community -based mitigation projects that alleviate or reduce impacts from port-related activities: Community Health, Facility Improvements and Community Infrastructure. The Facility Improvements and Community Infrastructure categories provide funding for capital projects to reduce impacts from air pollution. The Community Health category provides funding to support health proj ects and services designed to reduce the risks associated with asthma and other respiratory and/or cardiopulmonary ailments. These services may include screening and diagnosis, case management, education, training community health workers or medical personnel, and outreach.

The POLB is limited by the public trust doctrine on how and where its public trust revenues are spent.

Within the confines of these limitations, the California State Lands Commission advised the Port that trust revenues can only be used to mitigate Port impacts to the surrounding communities, over and above mitigation required by law, such as CEQA, if certain conditions are met. In 2016, the P OLB completed a Community Impact Study in the areas of air quality, traffic noise, and water quality through a CEQA -like analysis that used quantitative and qualitative, industry -accepted technical methodologies to demonstrate a connection between Port operations, impacts to local communities, and possible way to mitigate those impacts. (POLB, 2016b).

Based on the Community Impact Study, the Community Grants Program and Investment Plan identified the geographic areas most affected by Port -related operations and in which to direct Community Grants Program investments. These geographical areas, which include the entire City of Long Beach, are divided APPX_000132

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

September 2021 8-12
into two zones for grant funding: the “Priority Zone” and the “Eligibility Zone”. T he entire City of Long Beach and communities in parts of Wilmington in the City of Los Angeles, Carson, Compton, and Paramount fall within these two zones. The Eligibility Zone extends from the POLB along the I -710 north to portions of Paramount and Compton. The Eligibility Zone is the area in which significant Port impacts have been identified, and at minimum, mitigation projects must take place within. The Priority Zone is a subset of the Eligibility Zone and experiences the highest community impact from Port-related operations.

The POLB intends to invest the majority of mitigation dollars in the Priority Zone, which includes portions of Long Beach, Wilmington in the City of Los Angeles, Carson, Compton, and Paramount; as such, projects in this zone will receive the highest consideration during the evaluation process. Funding is also prioritized for mitigation projects that benefit sensitive populations, which include children, pregnant women, the elderly, the chronically ill, and those with respiratory or other cardiopulmonary conditions (POLB, 2016b).

Figure 8-1. shows the current delineati on of the Priority and Eligibility Zones for the Community Grants Program.

Through the Community Grants Program, the P OLB coordinates with local residents and communities to foster communication and collaboration to address community needs. Within this program, community groups, government agencies, and non -profit organizations are encouraged to submit applications for grant funding. Public workshops and focus groups are regularly conducted to define long-range funding priorities and provide input to annual Community Grants Program budgets. Briefings on the status of the Community Grants Program are presented at the P OLB’s public board meetings. Community leaders and citizens are invited to attend these meetings and provide input on the program. To date, through the Community Grants Program the POLB has provided $31.1 million in funding for the development of public parks, water quality improvements, LED lighting, healthcare programs, facility -based energy efficiency projects, trees and landscaping, solar panels, electric vehicles, air filtration, and noise abatement measures.

The City of Paramount is encouraged to learn more about the Community Grants Program by going to www.polb.com/grants for more information on applicant workshops, applications, and deadlines; or contact the POLB by e-mail ([email protected]) or by telephone at (562) 283-7133.

APPX_000133

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

September 2021 8-13

Figure 8-1. Community Grants Program Priority and Eligibility Zones

APPX_000134

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

September 2021 8-14
CCSC – Citizens Coalition for a Safe Community

CCSC-1
CCSC-3
CCSC-2
APPX_000135

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

September 2021 8-15

CCSC-7
CCSC-6
CCSC-5
CCSC-4
APPX_000136

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

September 2021 8-16

CCSC-11
CCSC-10
CCSC-9
CCSC-8
APPX_000137

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

September 2021 8-17
CCSC-12
APPX_000138

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

September 2021 8-18

CCSC-13
Attachment 2: 1947 crpd.tif Attachment 1: 1928 crpd.tif APPX_000139

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

September 2021 8-19

CCSC-14
APPX_000140

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

September 2021 8-20

CCSC-14,
cont.

APPX_000141

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

September 2021 8-21

CCSC-15
APPX_000142

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

September 2021 8-22

CCSC-15,
cont.

APPX_000143

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

September 2021 8-23
CCSC-15,
cont.

APPX_000144

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

September 2021 8-24
Response to Comments – CCSC
Citizens Coalition for a Safe Community
Dr. Tom Williams, Ph.D., UC Berkeley 1976
Senior Technical Adviser
October 11, 15, 28, and 29, 2020

Response to Comment CCSC-1
The comment requests a revision of the Initial Study to support a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report/Environmental I mpact Statement . The commenter does not provide rationale or basis that would require a revision to the IS/ND. No further response is required.

Nevertheless, the Port provides the following response: Per CEQA Guidelines, Article 5, Section 15063(b)(2), an Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed P roject and potential growth -inducing or cumulative effects of the proposed Project in combination with other projects. The Initial Study concluded that the proposed Project would not result in any significant effects on the environment and no mitigation measures are required ; therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared.

Response to Comment CCSC-2
The comment refers to information provided in the Notice of Intent issued by the Port on October 7, 2020; no comment or question about the Draft IS/ND is apparent, therefore, no response is necessary.

Response to Comment CCSC-3
The comment requests the complete Albus -Keef & Associates Geotechnical Update Report (2018) referenced in the Draft IS/ND and any preceding or related reports. On October 15, 2020, Jennifer Blanchard, Port Environmental Specialist Associate, provided the requested files via the Port’s MOVEit File Transfer Protocol (FTP) site ([email protected]). Dr. Williams confirmed receipt of the referenced files via email on the same day.

Response to Comment CCSC-4
The comment requests access to all referenced materials in the IS/ND and Sec. 7 p.7 -3 Matrix (Matrix PDM Engineering). 2019. API 650 Foundation Design Drawings. Sheet 3 of 3: Foundation Notes. World Oil. January 18. On October 15, 2020, Jennifer Blanchard, Port Environmental Specialist Associate, provided the requested files via the Port’s MOVEit FTP site ([email protected]). Dr. Williams confirmed receipt of the referenced files via email on the same day.

Response to Comment CCSC-5
Please see Response to Comment CCSC-1, as it is a duplicate comment.

Response to Comment CCSC-6
Please see Response to Comment CCSC-2, as it is a duplicate comment.

APPX_000145

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

September 2021 8-25
Response to Comment CCSC-7
Please see Response to Comment CCSC-4, as it is a duplicate comment.

Response to Comment CCSC-8
The comment requests access to all referenc es mentioned in the IS/ND, specifically requesting the Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Radius Map Report with Geocheck – World Oil Terminals Long Beach dated March 2020. On October 15, 2020, Jennifer Blanchard, Port Environmental Specialist Associate, provided the requested files via the Port’s MOVEit FTP site ( [email protected]). Dr. Williams confirmed receipt of the referenced files via email on the same day.

Response to Comment CCSC-9
Please see Response to Comment CCSC-1, as it is a duplicate comment.

Response to Comment CCSC-10
Please see Response to Comment CCSC-2, as it is a duplicate comment.

Response to Comment CCSC-11
Please see Response to Comment CCSC-8, as it is a duplicate comment.

Response to Comment CCSC-12
In the email message, the commenter states “Then happy to have done this today” and referenced a Fairchild Aerial Photo from 1923, which was also provided as an attachment to the email message. There are no apparent comments on the Draft IS/ND. Therefore, no response is required.

Response to Comment CCSC-13
In the email message, the commenter provides the years, 1928 and 1947. Two black and white photos were attached to the email. No further response is required.

Response to Comment CCSC-14
The comment requests access to the references in Draft IS/ND Section 7 (References) and identifies clarifications needed for the listed references. On October 15, 2020, Jennifer Blanchard, Port Environmental Specialist Associate, provided the requested refer ences via the Port’s MOVEit FTP site ([email protected]). Dr. Williams confirmed receipt of the referenced files via email on the same day.

The POLB also reviewed the comment’s regarding references requiring revision and made the requested clarifications to the references in Section 7 (References), where applicable in the Final IS/ND.

Response to Comment CCSC-15
The comment includes introductory text and states that the Negative Declaration is inadequate, incomplete, and that many referenced documents are not readily available to the public. The commenter requests revision and recirculation of the document as a Mitigated Negative Declaration with readily accessible references. Please refer to Response to Comment CCSC-14. The commenter does not raise any specific environmental concerns or provide rationale as to why a Mitigated Negative Declaration would APPX_000146

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

September 2021 8-26
be more appropriate than a Negative Declaration, and as such, no further revisions or recirculation of the IS/ND is necessary. See also Response to Comment CCSC-1.

APPX_000147

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

September 2021 8-27
EJ – Earthjustice

EJ-1
EJ-2
EJ-3
APPX_000148

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

September 2021 8-28

EJ-4
EJ-5
APPX_000149

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

September 2021 8-29

EJ-6
EJ-5
cont.

APPX_000150

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

September 2021 8-30

EJ-6
cont.

APPX_000151

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

September 2021 8-31

EJ-6
cont.

EJ-7
APPX_000152

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

September 2021 8-32

EJ-7
cont.

APPX_000153

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

September 2021 8-33

EJ-8
EJ-9
APPX_000154

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

September 2021 8-34

EJ-9
cont.

EJ-10
APPX_000155

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

September 2021 8-35

EJ-10
cont.

EJ-11
EJ-12
APPX_000156

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

September 2021 8-36

EJ-12
cont.

EJ-13
APPX_000157

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

September 2021 8-37

EJ-13
cont.

EJ-14
APPX_000158

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

September 2021 8-38

EJ-15
EJ-14,
cont.

APPX_000159

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

September 2021 8-39

EJ-15
cont.

APPX_000160

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

September 2021 8-40

EJ-16
APPX_000161

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

September 2021 8-41

EJ-17
EJ-16
cont.

APPX_000162

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

September 2021 8-42

EJ-17
cont.

EJ-18
APPX_000163

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

September 2021 8-43

EJ-19
EJ-18,
cont.

APPX_000164

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

September 2021 8-44

EJ-19,
cont.

APPX_000165

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

September 2021 8-45

EJ-19
cont.

EJ-20
APPX_000166

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

September 2021 8-46

EJ-22
EJ-21
APPX_000167

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

September 2021 8-47

EJ-22,
cont.

APPX_000168

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

September 2021 8-48

EJ-22,
cont.

APPX_000169

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

September 2021 8-49

EJ-23
EJ-22,
cont.

APPX_000170

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

September 2021 8-50

EJ-24
EJ-23,
cont.

APPX_000171

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

September 2021 8-51

EJ-25
EJ-26
EJ-24,
cont.

APPX_000172

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

September 2021 8-52

EJ-26,
cont.

APPX_000173

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

September 2021 8-53

APPX_000174

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

September 2021 8-54

APPX_000175

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

September 2021 8-55

APPX_000176

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

September 2021 8-56

EJ-29
EJ-30
EJ-27
EJ-28
APPX_000177

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

September 2021 8-57

EJ-30
cont.

EJ-31
EJ-32
APPX_000178

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

September 2021 8-58

EJ-32
cont.

EJ-33
EJ-34
APPX_000179

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

September 2021 8-59

EJ-34
cont.

EJ-35

APPX_000180

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

September 2021 8-60

EJ-36
APPX_000181

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

September 2021 8-61

EJ-36
cont.

APPX_000182

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

September 2021 8-62

EJ-36
cont.

APPX_000183

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

September 2021 8-63

EJ-36
cont.

APPX_000184

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

September 2021 8-64

EJ-36
cont.

APPX_000185

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

September 2021 8-65

EJ-36
cont.

EJ-37
APPX_000186

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

September 2021 8-66

EJ-37
cont.

APPX_000187

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

September 2021 8-67

EJ-37
cont.

APPX_000188

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

September 2021 8-68

EJ-37
cont.

APPX_000189

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

September 2021 8-69

EJ-37
cont.

EJ-38
APPX_000190

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

September 2021 8-70

EJ-38
cont.

APPX_000191

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

September 2021 8-71

EJ-38
cont.

EJ-39
APPX_000192

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

September 2021 8-72

EJ-39
cont.

APPX_000193

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

September 2021 8-73

EJ-39
cont.

APPX_000194

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

September 2021 8-74

EJ-39
cont.

APPX_000195

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

September 2021 8-75

EJ-39
cont.

APPX_000196

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

September 2021 8-76

EJ-39
cont.

APPX_000197

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

September 2021 8-77

EJ-39
cont.

APPX_000198

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

September 2021 8-78

EJ-39
cont.

APPX_000199

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

September 2021 8-79

EJ-39
cont.

APPX_000200

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

September 2021 8-80

EJ-40
APPX_000201

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

September 2021 8-81

EJ-40
cont.

APPX_000202

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

September 2021 8-82

EJ-40
cont.

APPX_000203

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

September 2021 8-83

EJ-43
EJ-40
cont.

EJ-41
EJ-42
APPX_000204

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

September 2021 8-84

EJ-43
cont.

EJ-44
EJ-45
EJ-46
APPX_000205

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

September 2021 8-85

EJ-47
EJ-48
APPX_000206

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

September 2021 8-86

EJ-48
cont.

APPX_000207

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

September 2021 8-87

EJ-48
cont.

EJ-49
APPX_000208

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

September 2021 8-88

EJ-49
cont.

EJ-50
APPX_000209

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

September 2021 8-89

EJ-51
APPX_000210

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

September 2021 8-90

Response to Comments – EJ
Earthjustice
Kartik Raj, Oscar Espino-Padron, Lisa Fuhrman, Adrian Martinez – Earthjustice Lauren Packard – Center for Biological Diversity
Chris Chavez – Coalition for Clean Air
Jennifer Ganata – Communities for a Better Environment
Taylor Thomas – East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice October 20, November 20, 2020, and March 16, 2021

Response to Comment EJ-1
The comment requests a 14-day extension for the public review period to end on November 19, 2020.

The 30-day public review period for the Draft IS/ND began on October 7, 2020, was originally set to end on November 5, 2020. On October 28, 2020, based on comments received, the public review period was extended by 15 days ending on November 20, 2020, for a total of 45 days.

Response to Comment EJ-2
The comment summarizes Earthjustice’s understanding of the proposed P roject and the purpose of Earthjustice’s request for an extension of the public review period. No further response is necessary.

Response to Comment EJ-3
Please refer to Response to Comment EJ-1.

Response to Comment EJ-4
The comment contends that the IS/ND prepared by the Port fails to account for substantial evidence that the Project may have significant envi ronmental effects, and that the IS/ND reveals multiple significant procedural defects that violate established guidelines for CEQA Review. Please see the Responses to Comments EJ-6 through EJ-51.

Response to Comment EJ-5
The comment references substantial technical analysis and other evidence demonstrating that issuance of a negative declaration for the Project would be scientifically unsupported an d in violation of CEQA. To the extent comments on the Draft IS/ND are raised in the supporting documents, responses are provided to the comments. Please see the Responses to Comments EJ-6 through EJ-51.

Response to Comment EJ-6
The comment states that the IS/ND violates CEQA procedural requirements since the Project received a permit to construct from the SCAQMD for the two new tanks months prior to completion of the IS/ND.

Since preparation of the Draft IS/ND, by POLB as the lead agency pursuant to CEQA in October 2020, World Oil’s permits to construct for the two new tanks issued by the SCAQMD in January 2020 lapsed, requiring World Oil to submit a new application for a permit to construct/operate for the two new proposed tanks.

In consultation with SCAQMD, World Oil has submitted a new permit application for the two proposed tanks. The POLB coordinated and consulted with the SCAQMD (a responsible agency under CEQA) as part APPX_000211

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

September 2021 8-91
of the IS/ND process. The new permits to construct will not be issued by the SCAQMD until after the IS/ND is adopted, the Project is approved, and a Harbor Development Permit is issued by the Board of Harbor Commissioners. This coordination and submittal of a new permit application to the SCAQMD address es issues related to the SCAQMD stationary source permitting requirements, including but not limited to the following:
 Tank emissions calculations,
 Fugitive VOC emissions calculations,
 Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions and health risk, and  Benzene emissions and health risk.

Response to Comment EJ-7
The comment states that the Draft IS/ND does not indicate whether the POLB consulted with SCAQMD, a responsible agency, or CDFW, a trustee agency, and therefore, the POLB failed to consult with these agencies to seek their recommendations as required by CEQA.

In parallel with submitting the Application for Harbor Development Permit to the P OLB, World Oil submitted an initial Permit to Construct/Permit to Operate Application for the two additional storage tanks at the existing World Oil Terminal to SCAQMD. The POLB reviewed this information as part of the Draft IS/ND process. Additional consu ltation with agencies , including CDFW, occurred through the publication and request for agencies, organizations, and the public to review of the Draft IS/ND, which occurred between October 7, 2020 and November 20, 2020 (original review period was October 7 – November 5, 2020; extension to November 20, 2020 was issued on October 28, 2020).

The Notice of Intent to Adopt and Availability of a Draft IS/ND was sent to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, interested parties, organizations, and the public pursuant to Section 21092 and 21092.3 of the Public Resources Code and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Furthermore, as shown in IS/ND Section

2.12 (Other Permits and Approvals), Table 2-5, the SCAQMD is identified as an agency from which permits are requi red. While CDFW is not identified as a permitting agency, as either no impacts or less than significant impacts to biological resources would occur, CDFW was notified as part of the notification process for the Draft IS/ND. To further support notification, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, CEQANet Web Portal documents the notification process completed by the State Clearinghouse and lists agencies notified. The Air Resources Board and CDFW are listed as reviewing agencies, among others ( https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020100119/2). Additionally, as part of the review process, the POLB provided detailed air quality calculations, including all source files, to the SCAQMD to facilitate their review process. No comments were receiv ed from SCAQMD or CDFW on the Draft IS/ND.

As part of the process in preparing responses to comments on the Draft IS/ND and to further engage the SCAQMD as a responsible agency for the permits to construct for the new tanks , the POLB and World Oil completed additional consultation with SCAQMD prior to finalization of the IS/ND. As a result of this consultation process, World Oil submitted a new Permit to Construct/Permit to Operate Application to SCAQMD in February 2021, as the previous permits to construct issued by the SCAQMD in January 2020 had expired (SCAQMD, 2021a).
2 The new permit application is currently under review by the SCAQMD

2 SCAQMD Rule 205 Expiration of Permits to Construct states “A permit to construct shall expire one year from the date of issuance unless an extension of time has been approved in writing by the Executive Officer”.

APPX_000212

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

September 2021 8-92
pending completion of the CEQA process. The POLB’s consultant , Aspen Environmental Group air quality specialist and registered professional (chemical) engineer, Mr. Will Walters reviewed the calculations and coordinated with SCAQMD to ensure adequacy for their use in the IS/ND, as the SCAQMD is a responsible agency under CEQA for the issuance of permits to construct for the proposed new tanks . As part of the CEQA consultation process, POLB staff and SCAQMD staff also held a conference call on January 19, 2021 to discuss th e proposed P roject and comments received on the Draft IS/ND . Mr. Walters has also had communication with the SCAQMD permitting engineer. Based on this additional consultation and in response to comments received from agencies, organizations, and the public , the Draft IS/ND has been revised and finalized and a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration issued in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15072.

Response to Comment EJ-8
The comment states that it is unclear if the Draft IS/ND properly identified and consulted with all responsible and trustee agencies, and the Notice of Intent and other documents provided to the public do not list the SCAQMD and CDFW, or any other responsible and trustee agencies. The comment concludes that this inadequate information suggests that these agencies did not receive sufficient notice of the Draft IS/ND. Please refer to Response to Comment EJ-7.

Response to Comment EJ-9
The comment states that the proposed Project’s VOC and benzene emissions are grossly underestimated due to the new tank emissions being estimated by the United States Environmental Protections Agency (U.S. EPA ) TANKS model. The comment further quotes information from the SCAQMD sponsored “FluxSense study” and Journal of Air & Waste Management ( JAWM) article to indicate potential magnitudes of this underestimate.

SCAQMD is the responsible agency for the assessment and approval of the emissions estimate s for the issuance of the permits to construct/operate for the proposed Project’s n ew tanks. As part of their engineering review of the new permit application, SCAQMD completed a revised emissions estimate for the proposed Project’s tanks using the current USEPA AP -42 Section 7.1 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks (USEPA, 2020) methodology, as suming a Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of 10, “average” paint condition, and August as the maximum monthly emissions (SCAQMD, 2021b, 2021c ). The TANKS model was not used by SCAQMD to estimate emissions for th e proposed P roject. Fugitive emissions from components were also included. Final IS/ND Section 4.3 (Air Quality), Table 4.3 -2, has been updated 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.

A similar comment regarding the “Fluxsense study” was made on another recent petroleum tank project’s Title V Significant Permit Revision under the permitting authority of the SCAQMD (SCAQMD, 2020c) .

SCAQMD referred the POLB to the comment response it provided in June 2020 on this comment issue, which is still considered valid, relevant, and usef ul. Therefore, the POLB is providing that SCAQMD comment response again, slightly modified in the context of World Oil’s proposed Project.

The permits will require that the crude oil storage tanks will be properly maintained and kept in good operating conditions at all times. Additionally, three South Coast AQMD rules are applicable to the crude oil storage tanks which specifically focus on reducing VOC emissions from storage tanks and fugitive components. In particular, South Coast AQMD Rules 463 - Organic Liquid Storage and 1178 - Further Reductions of VOC Emissions from Storage Tanks at Petroleum APPX_000213

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

September 2021 8-93
Facilities require semi-annual inspection of the rim seals (primary and secondary) of the floating roof, and deck fittings (e.g., roof leg socks, guide pole and float, hatches, vacuum breakers, and roof drains) and monitoring for VOC emissions in the space inside the dome above the floating roof. If a defect is found, the tank must be repaired within 72 hours of discovery. In addition, South Coast AQMD Rule 1173 - Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks and Releases from Components at Petroleum Facilities and Chemical Plants requires fugitive components to be monitored on a quarterly basis. If a leak is detected in a fugitive component, repairs must be made within one to seven calendar days, depending on the severity of the leak. Because the storage tanks are required to comply with BACT, the monitoring requirements of the permits will be more stringent than Sou th Coast AQMD Rule 1173. For example, the pumps, valve, and flanges associated with the proposed crude oil storage tanks are required to be initially monitored monthly, which is more stringent than the quarterly monitoring required by South Coast AQMD Rule 1173. The BACT monitoring requirements will be included in a permit condition for the crude oil storage tanks.

U.S. EPA has not approved the use of solar occultation flux data (as used in the FluxSense study) in lieu of AP -42 emissions factors for air qua lity permitting or any other regulatory purpose. By contrast, the process for adopting AP -42 emissions factors used in the Tanks model is quite detailed, based on empirical measured data evaluated by the U.S. EPA and circulated for a 60-day public comment period before being finalized.

The FluxSense study, referenced in the comment, was not specific to a single source such as a tank, but instead was a research study designed for assessing facility-wide emissions over a limited time- period (only several days). The study also assessed emissions from a tank farm (i.e., a group of tanks) at the refinery over an eight- day period. South Coast AQMD is currently conducting additional work using FluxSense technology and determining appropriate uses for it. Also, emission estimates of an entire refinery or even a tank farm are not representative of individual pieces of equipment and cannot be used to calculate emissions from a specific tank let alone be used to permit that tank that has not yet been constructed. The FluxSense study was an initial effort by South Coast AQMD to improve understanding of optical remote sensing methods to quantify VOC, NO 2, and SO 2 emissions and inferred benzene emissions from equipment for informational and potential future monitoring purpo ses. Its methodology is not suited for estimating potential future emissions from specific tanks or discreet fugitive sources because it is not capable of establishing emission factors for specific pieces of equipment.

The South Coast AQMD continues to evaluate this emerging technology and is involved in ongoing research projects to measure facility -wide emissions at all major refineries in the South Coast Air Basin on a quarterly basis (i.e. winter, spring, summer, fall) to understand seasonal variations in measurements. Optical Remote Sensing will also be used to measure emissions to establish baseline emissions of all refineries for purposes of the AB 617 Community Emission Reduction Plan for the Wilmington/Carson/West Long Beach community. As the South Coast AQMD continues to use this technology, we will also continue to consider how it can best be applied to refinery operations. But at this time, it is not ready to be used to establish emission limitations in a permit or to include permit conditions requiring its use for monitoring and enforcement.

The comment quotes a JAWM article. Th is JAWM article refers to a study conducted in Houston, Texas at a petroleum refinery/chemical plant comple x using Differential Absorption Light Detection and Ranging (DIAL). While not included in the quote, the JAWM article describes factors APPX_000214

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

September 2021 8-94
which create DIAL -based emissions rate uncertainties such as potential failures to accurately characterize the wind field. The Houston, Texas study included three tank sets (Tanks Sets 5, 6, and 9), all containing crude oils. The tanks were described as external floating roof tanks without any details about age, color, condition, number and type of fittings, or whether each tank is heated/unheated. In Emission Estimation Protocol for Petroleum Refineries, Version 3, April 2015, U.S. EPA states: “There are other direct measurement methods that have been used to measure emissions from storage tanks even when the emissions from the tank are not vented [i.e., DIAL (Differential Absorption LIDAR) techniques]; however, these methods do not provide continuous monitoring and have additional limitations (requiring consistent wind direction, etc.). Therefore, at the present time they a re not recommended as primary techniques for annual emission estimation.” Thus, while DIAL is another promising technology to measure VOC emissions, the Houston, Texas study information is not germane to the South Coast AQMD permitting process and to crude oil storage tanks in general or to the crude oil storage tanks in the proposed Title V permit. The new crude oil storage tanks in the proposed permit will be state -of-the-art, BACT - compliant, internal floating roof tanks.

Therefore, the U.S. EPA -approved AP-42 Section 7.1 emissions calculations were used by SCAQMD to complete the operations emissions estimate for the proposed P roject. The Fluxsense Study was not designed to be used for new tanks emissions estimating purposes and is not used by SCAQMD or any other air quality permitting agency for the purpose of new tank permit emission estimating.

Response to Comment EJ-10
This comment states that the IS/ND analysis of VOC localized impacts on sensitive receptors is incomplete and flawed b ecause it uses incorrect emissions thresholds and an incomplete health risk assessment completed by SCAQMD that does no t evaluate other significant health risks posed by VOC emissions including the formation of ground level ozone. Additionally, this comment notes that the POLB’s estimates of the proposed P roject’s VOC emissions are underestimated due to use of an unreliable methodology (i.e., U.S. EPA TANKS model), as previously noted in Comment EJ-9.

Both the health risk assessment associated with tank operation emissions, and the health risk analysis in the IS/ND for the Project -related construction activity emissions, were prepared in accordance with California Air Resources Board (CARB), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and SCAQMD recommended methods and guidelines . The health risks associated with emissions from the proposed tanks were determined by identifying and analyzing the risk of the known air toxic air contaminants emissions that are part of the total tank VOC emissions.

The ozone precursor (VOC) emissions increase of 10.93 lbs/day associated with the proposed Project’s operations (IS/ND Table 4.3 -2, p. 4 -10) is less than 0.0024 percent of CARB’s 2020 VOC (as Reactive Organic Gases [ROG]) emissions estimate for the Los Angeles County portion of the South Coast Air Basin, and the Project’s estimated operation NOX emissions increase of 0.81 lbs/day is less than 0.00022 percent of CARB’s 2020 NO X emissions estimate for the Los Angeles County portion of the South Coast Air Basin (CARB, 2016). Therefore, the proposed Project would not create any numerically relevant direct increases in near -field ozone concentrations. Additionally, there are no agency -recommended methods or procedures to address direct health impacts from Project-level near-field ground level ozone impacts. As noted for the proposed Project, ground level ozone health impacts would be negligible.

Please also see the Responses to Comments EJ-6 and EJ-9.

APPX_000215

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

September 2021 8-95
Response to Comment EJ-11
This comment states that the IS/ND did not analyze hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions from the new crude oil tanks and did not evaluate the proposed P roject’s H2S emissions impacts , including the cumulative impacts considering the Project area’s numerous other H2S emissions sources.

Crude oil can contain a substantial amount of total sulfur, several percent by weight; however, most of this sulfur is bound to carbon atoms and crude oil does not normally contain a large amount of dissolved H
2S. World Oil’s new permit application for the two new tanks provides an assay value for the crude of

3.5 ppm H2S and provides an emissions and risk estimate for H 2S emissions. The POLB coordinated with the SCAQMD to determine the adequacy of the H2S emissions estimate and impacts assessment contained in World Oil’s revised permit to construct/permit to operate application for the proposed new tanks .

SCAQMD performed independent calculations assuming a worst-case of 3 percent sulfur as H2S from the SDS Gas Oil, Virgin Tesoro product and August emissions due to warmer temperatures (SCAQMD, 2021b, 2021c). The annual H2S emissions are determined to be low (0.0116 pounds per year), and the combined air toxics emissions health risk is well below SCAQMD significance thresholds (SCAQMD, 2021b, 2021c).

The IS/ND Section 4.3 (Air Quality) has been updated to include the emissions estimate and impact assessment for H 2S emissions (checklist item b. discussion, just under Table 4.3 -2), including providing additional H2S emissions odor impact evaluation (checklist item d. discussion). The proposed Project’s H2S emissions would not create significant project-level or cumulative impacts.

Response to Comment EJ-12
The comment states that it is unclear if the 10 percent increase in truck trips includes truck trips anticipated to transport maintenance and waste materials and for refinery crude balancing. IS/ND Section

2.11 (Project Description), Section 4.3 (Air Quali ty), and Section 4.17 (Transportation) have been revised to clarify that the crude oil balancing is expected to remain the same (approximately one truck per month) with implementation of the proposed Project. The 10 percent increase in truck trips has been analyzed as a worst -case scenario for the purposes of the CEQA analysis and represents an atypical operation condition when, for example, a pipeline is out of service.

Response to Comment EJ-13
This comment states that the Draft IS/ND fails to consider the link between the P roject’s direct and life- cycle air pollution impacts and COVID-19. The comment cites several studies that assert that exposure to nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen oxide, ozone, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and PM 2.5 is linked to higher risk of infection and mortality from COVID-19.

An analysis of the potential project-specific health impacts from air pollution emissions is required under CEQA. This analysis is presented in IS/ND Section 4.3 ( Air Quality, Item c .), using health protective standards and significance thresholds to assess the worst -case health impacts , including the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds to a ssess criteria pollutants and SCAQMD health risk significance thresholds to address air toxic pollutants. The health risk assessment methods and assumptions account for sensitive receptors with health conditions , such as asthma, chronic pulmonary disease (COPD), and emphysema, and short-term acute diseases that can impact lung function such as the flu, common colds, or COVID-19. While conservative reference exposure levels are used to assess worst -case acute health risk, there are no responsible-agency recommended methods, procedures, or requirements to separately address project effects on specific short -term acute diseases like COVID -19, as the analysis is already designed to be health protective and address es potential worst-case project impacts and baseline APPX_000216

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

September 2021 8-96
receptor health conditions. Additionally, there are no requirements to address project life-cycle air quality impacts, such an analysis would be speculative at best..

Response to Comment EJ-14
The comment states that the proposed Project’s direct and indirect operation VOC emissions were not fully addressed in the IS/ND. The comment notes that the emissions from the new pipeline pump, pipeline cleaning, and tank dewatering wastewater treatment VOC emissions were not considered and included in the P roject’s total direct emissions. The comment also notes contradictory statements regarding indirect GHG emissions from fuel pumping.

The POLB, as the lead agency under CEQA, prepared the IS/ND for the issuance of a Harbor Development Permit. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15096, the SCAQMD is a responsible agency under CEQA for the issuance of the permit to construct/permit to operate for the two tanks, and assisted the POLB, to ensure that the proposed Project’s operations emissions estimates related to the new tanks’ operation are consistent with the permit evaluation. Specifically, the following addresses the emissions sources noted in the comment:

Pipeline Pump. The POLB coordinated with the SCAQMD n to ensure that all new piping component fugitive VOC emissions are included in the emissions estimate.

Pipeline Cleaning. The Project does not include the installation or use of any new pipelines. As such, there would be no increase in the frequency of emissions from pipeline cleaning. The IS/ND clearly identifies that the proposed Project would use existing pipelines and would no t include the construction of new pipelines, except for approximately 40 linear feet of piping to connect the new tanks to existing pipe infrastructure (see IS/ND Section 2.9 [Project Overview]).

Tank Dewatering. The proposed Project includes the construction and operation of two new crude oil tanks. The new tanks would not cause an increase in crude throughput that would increase the throughput or wastewater treatment requirements for crude oil dewatering. Therefore, the P roject would not affect VOC emissions related to tank dewatering and wastewater treatment.

Indirect Pumping GHG Emissions. The amount of any pumping electricity increase from the two proposed 25-horsepower pumps would not increase the indirect GHG emissions by a magnitude that would be significant. Given the low amount of total horsepower involved, where even if the pumps were to operate at 100 percent load 100 percent of the time, the indirect GHG emissions would be a small fraction of the SCAQMD GHG emissions significance threshold. Additionally, the new tanks are not designed to increase crude oil throughput, so the crude oil pumping energy requirement should not change, and any change in electricity use would be from the additional pumping resulting from the new use of the two existing tanks that will go into lease service. That new use for the two existing tanks is not known and cannot be reasonably estimated. However, to clearly demonstrate that the energy use from pumps of this size would not create substantial indirect GHG emissions, the following worst -case GHG emissions calculation is provided:
2 x 25 horsepower (hp) pumps x 1 (100% load) x 8,760 hours (h)/year / 1,341 hp/Megawatt (MW) = 327 MWh/year 327 MWh/year x 0.181 MT CO2e/MWh (SCE’s 2019 delivered energy GHG emissions rate3) = 59 MT CO2e/year

3 SCE, 2020.

APPX_000217

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

September 2021 8-97
The actual expected pump use is a small fraction of 100 percent use at 100 percent load, well less than 10 percent of full time use, meaning the indirect emissions would be less than 10 MT CO 2e/year and the SCAQMD GHG emissions significance threshold is 10 ,000 metric tons of CO 2e/year, so the indirect emissions from pumping increase would be expected to be less than one tenth of one percent of this significance criteria and would clearly be a “minor amount of increased indirect GHG emissions” as stated in the IS/ND.

Response to Comment EJ-15
The comment states that the analysis of the proposed Project’s cumulative impacts is improper and incomplete because it does not consider the operation of the tanks or generation of tank sludge over the Project’s lifetime. When assessing whether a cumulative effect requires an EIR, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(1) states that a “lead agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable.” Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(4) states that “The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable”.

As summarized in the Draft IS/ND, Section 3.1 (Environmental Factors Potentially Affected), no potentially significant impacts have been identified for the World Oil Tank Installation Project. All impacts were determined to be e ither “No Impact” or “Less than Significant” because they would not exceed any project-specific significant thresholds. Based on these conclusions, incremental effects of the proposed Project would be minor and, therefore not considered to be cumulatively considerable as defined by State CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(1). Since impacts from the proposed P roject are not considered to be cumulatively considerable, the proposed Project has no po tential for generating significant adverse cumulative impacts. As stated above, projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable.

SCAQMD’s guidance regarding cumulative impact assessment states the following:

Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project -specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conver sely, projects that do not exceed the project- specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant (SCAQMD, 2003).

Using the SCAQMD guidance for cumulative air quality impact assessment, projects that have impacts below all SCAQM D significance criteria can be considered to have less than significant cumulative air quality impacts. The proposed P roject’s construction and operation emissions were found to be well below all SCAQMD emissions significance thresholds, and the health risk from the proposed P roject was found to be below SCAQMD health risk significance thresholds. Therefore, evidence supports the determination that the proposed Project would not have cumulatively considerable air quality impacts.

Furthermore, the court aff irmed based on the Leonoff decision ( Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (8/16/1990) 22 Cal. App. 3d 1337) that absent substantial evidence that the project would have a considerable incremental effect…an in -depth study of potential cumulative impact was not a prerequisite to preparing an MND. Specifically, the Leonoff decision states, “Under other circumstances, County might be faulted for not elaborating further on the Initial Study’s conclusions of no significant cumulative effects. But where there is no substantial evidence of any individual potentially significant effect by this project, this conclusion appears reasonable.” APPX_000218

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

September 2021 8-98
The comment also notes that the new tanks would generate approximately 15,000 barrels (bbl) of tank sludge over the co urse of the 50-year operational life. IS/ND Section 4.9 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) and Section 4.21 (Mandatory Findings of Significance) have been revised to clarify that s ludge tank bottom quantities would be disposed of at a permitted treatment, s torage, and disposal facility (TSDF) such as U.S. Ecology waste facility. 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. The U.S. Ecology Vernon RCRA Part B facility is capable of handling a high volume of waste, with a tank capacity of one million gallons with an additional 400,000-gallon equivalents of container sto rage (U.S. Ecology Vernon, 2021). Sludge tank bottom quantities are estimated to be approximately 1,500 bbl (63,000 gallons) every ten years. Over the approximate 50 years lifetime of the proposed Project, the sludge tank bottom quantities would be equal to 15,000 bbl. The amount of 1,500 bbl of sludge tank bottom quantity that is generated every ten years accounts for approximately 4.5 percent of the overall capacity of the U.S. Ecology Vernon facility. This amount of sludge tank bottom accounts for a small percentage of the overall capacity of the nearest U.S.

Ecology waste facility. Thus, the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts is determined to be less than significant.

Response to Comment EJ-16
The comment states that the Draft IS/ND fails to consider the proposed Project’s cumulative impacts i n the context of the existing operations at the World Oil Terminal. As explained in Response to Comment EJ-15, projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable, and those that do not exceed the project -specific significance thresholds are not considered to be cumulatively considerable. The analysis in the Draft IS/ND found no significant impacts. Therefore, the analysis in the Draft IS/ND regarding cumulative impacts properly concluded that no significant adverse cumulative impacts would be expected as a result of the proposed Project.

Response to Comment EJ-17
The comment states that the Draft IS/ND fails to consider closely related refining operations in the region as part of the cumulative impact analysis. P lease see Response to Comment EJ-15. The proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts that would be cumulatively considerable. Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(4) states that the mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable. Therefore, CEQA does not require the IS/ND to identify cumulative projects, as the proposed Project would not have any cumulatively considerable impacts. As described in IS/ND Section 2.9 (Project Overview), the World Oil Terminal is an existing approved use that currently contains seven tanks. The proposed Project would add two tanks within the existing footprint of the facility and is consistent with the 1990 certified Port Master Plan Update (PMPU).

The Project site is a crude oil and petroleum product storage site, not a refinery. Refinery processing capacities are constrained by many factors including equipment design capacity, permit conditions, firing rates for combustion sources, and maintenance schedules of the various operating units within a refinery.

Refinery processes are not influenced by storage capacity. Therefore, the proposed Project would not affect local refinery operations.

The comment states that it is unclear what “current projects” were considered in the IS/ND as part of the cumulative analysis. “Current projects” refer to similar ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future construction projects, which are not limited to “other storage tanks” or “petroleum refinery operations,” APPX_000219

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

September 2021 8-99
which the comment references. IS/ND Section 4.21 (Mandatory Findings of Significance) has been revised to clarify that other storage tanks and petroleum refinery operations are existing, ongoing operations, not new construction projects or major modifications.

Response to Comment EJ-18
The comment states that the Draft IS/ND fails to consider the cumulative impacts from hundreds of other petroleum storage tanks projects in the region.

The cumulative impact assessment was completed in accordance with SCAQMD guidance. As noted in Comment Response EJ-8, the POLB has coordinated with the SCAQMD in the review of World Oil’s revised permit application to ensure that the impact analysis in the IS/ND complies with all SCAQMD methods , guidance, and requirements necessary for the SCAQMD to issue the permit to construct/permit to operate for the two new tanks.

While this comment, with additional permit application data provided as an attachment to comment EJ - 51, notes that there has been a very large number of tank permit applications submitted between 2010 and 2020 (1, 010 total permit applications ), a review of this information indicates very few of these applications were for construction of new petroleum product tanks. Most of these permit applications are for change of ownership (751), alteration/modification (135), and change of permit condition (39) . Only 67 of these permit applications were for new construction, and of these only 31 were for above ground petroleum product storage tanks. The comment also does not identify tank sizes to determine how many are comparable in size to the proposed Project’s tanks and also does not provide the number of retired storage tanks for this same period. As such, this comment may provide the impression that air pollutant emissions and resultant health risk from petroleum products storage tanks has increased since 2010 due to the volume of permit applications ; however, Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) emissions from the petroleum refining and marketing sector have declined since 2010, as estimated by CARB in Table EJ-18.

Table EJ-18. Los Angeles County portion of South Coast Air Basin Petroleum Refining and Marketing ROG Emissions Estimate Comparison 2010 and 2020 (Tons/Day) Emissions Sector/Subcategory 2010 2020
Petroleum Production and Marketing1 28.95 15.11
Petroleum Refining 6.10 4.54
Petroleum Marketing 14.03 8.39
1 – Not all subcategories are listed, so totals of subcategories will not match the Sector total.

Source: CARB, 2016.

Given the large emissions decline in this sector , and relevant subcategories, there are no sector -wide cumulatively significant emissions increases, and the proposed Project’s small emissions increase of approximately 0.005 tons/day (1 1 lbs/day) ROG would not be cumulatively considerable in comparison with the sector emissions shown in Table EJ-18.

Also, please see Responses to Comment EJ-15 and EJ-17.

Response to Comment EJ-19
The comment states that the Draft IS/ND Project Description fails to properly define the proposed Project because it does not account for the impacts of oil refining activities, which the comment asserts are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the proposed Project. IS/ND Section 2.11 (Project Description) APPX_000220

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

September 2021 8-100
has been revised to clarify the differences between the proposed P roject activities and oil refiner y activities, and that fuel and crude oil throughput at refineries is not influenced by the proposed Project’s storage capacity. As described in the Draft IS/ND Project Description, oil refining activities are considered a separate action. Acti vities at refineries such as the Marathon Petroleum Carson Refinery and at terminals such as Glencore Long Beach Marine Terminal have permitting limits separate from the World Oil Terminal storage facility. Additionally, oil refineries are designed to allow for a limited quantity of oil to be refined during a given period and are not influenced by the amount of petroleum stored at separate facilities, and therefore, fuel oil throughput would not increase as a direct or indirect result of the proposed Project. Therefore, the Draft IS/ND complies with CEQA’s requirements by accurately describing the proposed Project and providing evidence that fuel and crude oil throughput at refineries would not increase as a result of the installation of two new storage tanks.

Response to Comment EJ-20
The comment states that the Draft IS/ND asserts without evidence that the proposed Project would not allow greater actual crude oil throughput.

As noted in Response to Comment EJ-19, this project would not increase the throughput capacity for the World Oil refinery, which is throughput constrained by many other factors, including air permit throughput or use limits. These new tanks provide storage only, they do not affect the downstream use and as correctly stated in the IS/ND would not allow greater actual crude oil throughput.

Response to Comment EJ-21
This comment notes that the IS/ND fails to include foreseeable combustion of distributed oil products.

While the proposed Project increases petroleum product storage capacity by 50,000 barrels at the Project site, the proposed P roject in and of itself would not increase the use of the stored petroleum products (crude oil or fuel oils ) nor would the proposed Project create additional fuel oil consumers. There would be no way to determine how the proposed Project would affect existing fuel consumers and total fuel consumption; any estimate would not be foreseeable and would be pure conjecture, a speculative estimate at best 4. Additionally, World Oil stores crude oil for use at its Southern California refinery that produces asphalt roofing, paving products, and distillates used in motor fuels, but does not directly produce motor fuels (World Oil Corp, 2021). Further, the proposed Project would provide more flexibility in the storage of fuels, as California Low Carbon Fuel Standard regulations require increasing the amount of renewable fuel production/use, and through vehicle electrification regulations. Therefore, the use of petroleum-based fuels, including petroleum -based marine fuels, will be reduced through the implementation forced by regulation to be reduced over time.

As stated in IS/ND Section 2 (Project Description) and Section 4.3 (Air Quality), 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 when a pipeline is being serviced.

The air quality analysis accounts for the air quality impacts associated with this increase in diesel fuel use in on-road heavy-duty trucks. This is the only normal daily increase in fossil fuel consumption that can be quantitatively directly attributed to the proposed Project.

Please also see Responses to Comment EJ-13 and EJ-15.

4 CEQA law does not require speculation; in fact, it discourages speculative analysis as noted in Article 10.

Considerations in Preparing EIRs and Negative Declarations, Section 15145 Speculation.

APPX_000221

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

September 2021 8-101
Response to Comment EJ-22
The comment states that the IS/ND fails to consider GHG emissions in the context of California’s emissions reduction goals and the crisis of climate change and asserts that the IS/ND fails to analyze the potentially significant impacts of GHGs during all stag es of oil development, including lifecycle and cumulative impacts.

The IS/ND Section 4.8 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), under the C hecklist item a. discussion, evaluates the GHG emissions in the context of the SCAQMD significant emissions thresholds for indu strial sources and the proposed Project’s conformance with GHG emissions reduction plans, policies, and regulations. The proposed Project was found to have a small increase in GHG emissions from construction and operation, an increase of less than 1/100th of the significance threshold. Operation GHG emissions were determined to be insignificant because leasing of the existing tanks would cause a minor increase in GHG emissions from electricity used to power the pipeline pumps and fugitive GHG emissions from crude oil storage and loading are negligible because the proposed Project would not cause an increase in crude oil throughput.

The IS/ND Section 4.8 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), under the c hecklist item b. discussion, evaluates the proposed P roject in terms of conformance with applicable agency adopted GHG emissions reduction plans, policies, or regulations, where it was determined that the proposed Project also conforms with applicable GHG emissions reduction measures.

The comment appears to overlook the State CEQA guidelines and SCAQMD significance thresholds and seeks to impose requirements for GHG emissions reductions and life-cycle impact analysis not required under CEQA or under State and local agency regulations . Life-cycle impact analysis would be speculative and speculative analysis is discouraged under CEQA law. Please see Responses to Comments EJ-13, EJ-14, EJ-19, EJ -20, EJ-21, and EJ -31 in relation to comments regarding life- cycle emissions and speculative analysis.

Response to Comment EJ-23
This comment states that the IS/ND improperly relies on SCAQMD’s outdated interim GHG threshold for significance. The IS/ND used the appropriate GHG emissions significance threshold, as determined by the local responsible agency, the SCAQMD, for the proposed Project’s GHG emissions impact analysis.

The SCAQMD GHG emissions significance threshold of 10,000 metric tons per year for industrial projects is a published threshold that is provided with the other approved SCAQMD air quality significance thresholds (SCAQMD, 2019). The SCAQMD last revised their air quality significance thresholds list in 2019, therefore it is not considered outdated for industrial sources.

Response to Comment EJ-24
The comment states that the Draft IS/ND fails to provide substantial evidence that earthquakes would not pose a risk of significant environmental impact. Located in Southern California, the proposed Project site is in a known seismically active region. The proposed Project would be subject to similar levels of impact as other development projects in Southern California and would not exacerbate seismic -related hazards relative to existing conditions. The Final IS/ND Section 4.7 (Geology and Soils) has been revised to clarify the design and construction, including site preparation and final engineering of the P roject, shall incorporate all geotechnical recommendations provided in the Albus -Keefe & Associates geotechnical update report from 2018 (Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc., 2018). The recommendation of a ground improvement system consisting of Geopiers or the equivalent rammed aggregate piers would reduce the APPX_000222

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

September 2021 8-102
effects of static and seismic settlement at the project site (Albus -Keefe, 2018). Additionally, a ma t-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 proposed tanks would be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable State and building code requirements and standards, such as the California Building Codes, City of Long Beach building codes, and the Seismic Safety Element of the City of Long Beach. C ompliance with these requirements and incorporation of all geotechnical recommendations provided in the geotechnical investigation report into the final design would reduce the potential for environmental impacts from earthquakes.

The comment also notes that earthquakes would leave the tanks vulnerable to fires, spills, and explosions.

Engineering controls on the project site serve to prevent hazardous conditions, such as a fire or explosion.

The project site contains fire extinguishing equipment, in addition to a deluge fire suppression system.

The existing tanks are equipped with a foam fire suppression system. The new tanks would also be equipped with a foam fire suppression system. In the event of a large fire, the site operator is trained to stop ongoi ng operations, close all safety isolation valves, and report a fire to the Long Beach Fire Department. The foam fire suppression system allows first responders to pump aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) both into and onto a tank. The estimated response time of the Long Beach Fire Department would be 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 in the event of 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 P roject requires all plans to be updated to reflect the new tanks.

World Oil is not required to comply with California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) 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.

The proposed Project site is in an industrialized area, not an urban residential area. Any fire would be isolated at the Port. There is no history of fires at the project site. Constr uction and operation of the proposed Project is subject to in place emergency response and evacuation systems which are implemented by the POLB. The proposed Project is contained entirely within the POLB, and is serviced by the Long Beach Fire Department, the Long Beach Police Department, and the Port Harbor Patrol for fire protection, police protection, and emergency services. In the event of a fire, existing on - and off -site resources would put out petroleum fires quickly and not allow them to burn themselves out. The proposed Project would not exacerbate fire-related hazards relative to existing conditions.

As discussed in Section 2.9 (Project Overview) of the Draft IS/ND, the existing tanks at the project site are 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 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 s pill. 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 such that any spills would be contained.

APPX_000223

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

September 2021 8-103
Response to Comment EJ-25
The comment asserts that the Draft IS/ND includes studies that are inadequately cited or included in the administrative record and do not account for substantial evidence showing risks of significant environmental impacts from a tsunami.

This comment is unclear. Nevertheless, the citations throughout IS/ND Section 4.10(d) (Hydrology and Water Quality) have been updated to correct the spelling of the author of the 2007 Tsunami Hazard Assessment for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach Final Report (Hazard Assessment), Moffatt & Nichol. The comment’s footnotes (No. 174, 176, and 177) refer to Appendix A, Section V.A. of the comment letter. Appendix A, Section V.A focuses on potential cumulative impacts experienced by disadvantage communities in the general harbor area and does not provide evidence of, or relate to, potential significant environmental impacts from a tsunami.

As discussed in IS/ND Section 4.10(d) (Hydrology and Water Quality), the 2007 Tsunami Hazard Assessment for the Port of Los Ange les and Port of Long Beach prepared by Moffat & Nichol concluded that large earthquakes (e.g., magnitude ~7.5) are very infrequent and have not occurred in the offshore area of California within historical times and that a large and locally generated tsunami would not likely occur more than once every 10,000 years (Moffatt & Nichol, 2007).

In 2010, the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/Pacific Marine Environmental La boratory (PMEL) investigated 322 possible distant source scenarios under which a magnitude (Mw) 9.3 earthquake could generate a tsunami with potential significant impact on the POLB (Uslu et al., 2010). Of the 322 scenarios investigated, it was determined that a Mw 9.3 earthquake originating from Alaska had the most potential to trigger a tsunami capable of having the most impact to the ports (i.e., worst case scenario). This magnitude of earthquake may potentially produce wave amplitudes up to approximatel y 6.5 feet and current velocities exceeding 4 meters per second (≈8 knots or 9 miles per hour) in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (Uslu et al., 2010). The potential tsunami would take approximately 2 to 7 hours to reach the Los Angeles tide station (Uslu et al., 2010).

As described in IS/ND Section 4.10(d) (Hydrology and Water Quality), the proposed Project would be constructed within the existing 12.5- to 13-foot-high concrete containment wall and would not be subject to significant damage from inundation or if struck by tsunami-borne debris. As described in the report by JISAO, NOAA, and PMEL, large tsunamis have historically caused heavy damage to waterfronts, vessels, moorings, piers, a nd 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.

Additionally, in the event of an emergency, World Oil would comply with risk reduction requirements through implementation of existing emergency contingency plans, which include precautions to minimize potential hazards and actions to take. Refer to Response to Comment EJ-24.

APPX_000224

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

September 2021 8-104
Response to Comment EJ-26
The comment states that the POLB must issue an EIR to comply with CEQA and that the Draft IS/ND ignores evidence that suggests that there are significant impacts. Please see Responses to Comments EJ-5 through EJ-25.

Response to Comment EJ-27
The comment is an introductory statement that the South Coast A ir Q uality Management District’s Application Engineering Evaluation and Permit -to-Construct documents for the Project were reviewed.

No further response is required.

Response to Comment EJ-28
The comment summarizes the commenter’s understanding of the proposed Project and asserts that there are deficiencies in the Negative Declaration requiring detailed environmental analysis. Please see Responses to Comments EJ-30 through EJ-49 for specific responses to the stated deficiencies.

Response to Comment EJ-29
The comment states that the Draft IS/ND “makes unsupported conclusions, fails to include basic information necessary for public review, and leaves mitigation for later.” This is introductory text, with detailed comments following this statement. Please see Responses to Comments EJ-30 through EJ-49.

Response to Comment EJ-30
This comment is from the Technical Appendix to the Comment Letter that provides additional details to support Comments EJ-9 and EJ-10. Please see Responses to Comments EJ-9 and EJ-10.

Response to Comment EJ-31
This comment states that the IS/ ND should have included an assessment of cancer risk from the use of portable equipment used at the site.

Portable equipment use does not occur regularly at the P roject site, where energy requirement s for all ongoing activities is provided by public utility supplied electricity or natural gas. World Oil does not keep any portable equipment on site. Project-related portable equipment use would be rent ed or contractor- owned equipment where use would be limited to very low-frequency major maintenance events, such as for tank cleaning which would occur approximately every 10 years. The emissions from such limited use of portable equipment would be minimal and subject to CARB portable equipment registration program (PERP) or SCAQMD permitting regulations . Therefore, due to limited and periodic use (approximately every 10 years), the emissions from on -site portable equipment use would not substantially affect the long-term toxic air pollutant cancer risk from the project site.

Response to Comment EJ-32
This comment is from the Technical Appendix to the Comment Letter tha t provides additional details to support Comment EJ-11. Please see the Response to Comment EJ-11.

APPX_000225

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

September 2021 8-105
Response to Comment EJ-33
The comment asserts that there is a significant risk of increased and severe tsunami hazards due to the proposed Project. Please refer to Response to Comment EJ-25.

Response to Comment EJ-34
The comment states that the Draft IS/ND fails to provide substantial evidence that earthquakes would not pose a risk of significant environmental impact. Please refer to Response to Comment EJ-24.

Response to Comment EJ-35
This is a statement summarizing the experience of Julie May, Senior Scientist, CBE . No response is required.

Response to Comment EJ-36
This comment is from the Technical Appendix to the Comment Letter that provides additional details to support Comment EJ-9. Please see the response to Comment EJ-9.

Response to Comment EJ-37
This comment is from the Technical Appendix to the Comment Letter tha t provides additional details to support Comment EJ-11. Please see the response to Comment EJ-11.

Response to Comment EJ-38
The comment states that the proposed Project would result in significant impacts due to a tsunami or earthquake. Please refer to Response to Comment EJ -24 and EJ -25. The significance of the proposed Project’s impacts is determined based on whether the additional tanks would substantially exacer bate existing conditions. As stated in IS/ND Section 4.10 (Hydrology and Water Quality), the proposed tanks would be constructed and installed within existing 12.5 to 13-foot -high containment wall that would continue to offer the same level of adequate tsunami protection for the proposed tanks as they do for the existing tanks. Construction of the new tanks would not change the level of protection that the containment wall provides.

Response to Comment EJ-39
The comment states that the Draft IS/ND fails to provide substantial evidence that earthquakes would not pose a risk of significant environmental impact. Please refer to Response to Comment EJ-24.

Response to Comment EJ-40
The comment provides reference to the California Coastal Commission’s Environmental Justice Policy, the California Environmental Protection Agency CalEnviroScreen mapping tool which maps and scores concentrated environmental and socioeconomic burdens in California, including a screenshot of the residential areas surrounding the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. A screenshot of the Ribost Terminal identified as a “Toxic Release Facility” is also provided. Finally, the comment references the SCAQMD Community Emission Reduction Plan (CERP) for the Wilmington/Carson/West Long Beach (WCWLB). The commenter also notes that in addition to ports, related priorities in the CERP include the refineries (the World Oil terminal is not a refinery, rather refineries which use crude oil lease tanks at the APPX_000226

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

September 2021 8-106
World Oil Terminal). The comment does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis in the Draft IS/ND. As such, no response is required.

Response to Comment EJ-41
The comment states that “[n]eighbors and community organization s in the Ports area WCWLB have long sought protective measures to slow the concentration of new polluting and hazardous sources and reduce pollution. This requires serious evaluation of cumulative impacts, rather than streamlining of permitting and environmental assessments, as in the ND’s cumulative impacts analysis.” Because the proposed Project is located in the Harbor District, the POLB has the authority for the issuance of a Harbor Development Permit pursuant to Chapter 8 of the California Coastal Act and the certified PMPU, as amended. The commenter asserts that the IS/ND’s cumulative impacts analysis did not involve “serious evaluation” so as to streamline of permitting and environmental assessment. Issuance of a Harbor Development Permit by the POLB, as a public agency, requires compliance with CEQA. CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15021 (a)). Contrary to the assertion that the POLB “streamlined” permitting and environmental assessment without serious evaluation of the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project, the POLB’s assessment was prepared i n accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060 and 15063. The POLB conducted preliminary review of the proposed Project, and an Initial Study was prepared to determine if the proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment. As summarized in the Draft IS/ND, Section 3.1 (Environmental Factors Potentially Affected), no potentially significant impacts have been identified for the World Oil Tank Installation Project. All impacts were determined to be either “No Impact” or “Less than Significant” because they would not exceed any project-specific significant thresholds. Based on these conclusions, incremental effects of the proposed Project would be minor and, therefore not considered to be cumulatively considerable as defined by State CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(1). Since impacts from the proposed P roject are not considered to be cumulatively considerable, the proposed P roject has no potential for generating significant adverse cumulative impacts. Please also see Responses to Comments EJ-13 through EJ-16.

Response to Comment EJ-42
The comment states that “environmental assessment before finalizing a permit is necessary and appropriate, but the Project received a permit even before the ND was published…instead of the especial importance of evaluating cumulative impacts in this area, the ND analysis is very inadequate, and would allow the Project to add hazards and pollution which are significant by themselves, but also cumulatively significant”.

It is unclear which permit the commenter is referring to. The POLB is the lead agency pursuant to CEQA for the proposed Project, as it is the agency responsible for the issuance of a Harbor Development Permit to World Oil for the proposed Project in accordance with Chapter 8 of the California Coastal Act and Section 1215 of the City of Long Beach Municipal Code. The SCAQMD has been identified as a responsible agency under CEQA because of its authority to issue permits to construct/operate under the Clean Air Act.

Presuming that the comment er is referring to World Oil’s previously issued permits to construct for the two new tanks in January 2020 by the SCAQMD , as discussed in Response to Comment EJ -6, since the issuance of the Draft IS/ND by the POLB, World Oil’s permits to construct issued in January 2020 have lapsed and are no longer valid. As a result, in consultation with SCAQMD, World Oil has submitted a new permit application for the two proposed tanks. The POLB has coordinated and consulted with the APPX_000227

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

September 2021 8-107
SCAQMD as part of the IS/ND process in accordance with CEQA. The Harbor Development Permit will only be issued should the Board of Harbor Commissioners approve the project and adopt the IS/ND. As a responsible agency for issuance of permits to construct for the proposed Project, the SCAQMD would comply with CEQA by considering the IS/ ND prepared by the POLB and reaching its own conclusions on whether and how to approve the Project (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(a)).

The analysis in the Draft IS/ND found no significant impacts. As described in Section 4.3 (Air Quality), daily construction and operation emissions would be well below the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants and are therefore less than significant. Therefore, the analysis in the Draft IS/ND regarding cumulative impacts properly concluded that no significant adverse cumulative impacts would be expected as a result of the proposed Project. Please refer to Response to Comment EJ-15 and EJ-17.

Response to Comment EJ-43
The comment states that the VOC and benzene emissions are already cumulatively significant in the area and the Project significantly adds to this cumulative impact. Please see Response to Comment EJ-15.

Response to Comment EJ-44
This comment infers that the proposed Project’s H2S emissions impacts, both odor and health impacts, would be cumulatively significant. Please see Responses to Comments EJ-11 and EJ-15.

Response to Comment EJ-45
This comment infers that the proposed Project’s nominal increase in diesel truck trips and use of portable engines during tank maintenance events would create cumulatively significant health risk impacts. Please see Responses to Comments EJ-15 and EJ-31.

While the proposed Project will cause a small increase in diesel truck trips and use of portable equipment, the proposed Project’s small amount of increased trucking and portable engine use would not create a cumulatively considerable increase to health risks. The increase in diesel particulate matter ( DPM) emissions from this additional fuel trucking is estimated to be 0.014 pounds per day . The facility has no resident portable equipment. Rented or contractor-owned equipment would be used infrequently during major maintenance events, like tank cleaning (once every approximately 10 years) , so emissions from portable equipment are intermittent and would be zero much of the time. The total amount of DPM emissions from these operation sources is negligible in the context of regional DPM emissions and existing ambient air health risk impacts.

Response to Comment EJ-46
The comment states that the proposed Project would have significant cumulative impacts resulting from fires, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Please refer to Responses to Comments EJ -15 regarding cumulative air quality impacts, EJ-24 for earthquake and fire hazards, and EJ-25 for tsunami hazards.

The project site is not located in an area of “dense woodframe construction” as referred to in footnote 56 of the comment. The project site is in an industrial area, not an urban residential area. Fire suppression systems include fire extinguishing equipment, a deluge fire suppression system, and foam fire suppression system on the tanks. Fire suppression systems, engineering controls, and risk reduction requirements serve to reduce the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts which are less than significant.

APPX_000228

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

September 2021 8-108
Response to Comment EJ-47
The comment states that the throughput would be additional feedstocks to refineries, and as a result, the potential throughput must be evaluated. Please refer to Response to Comment EJ-19.

Response to Comment EJ-48
The comment states that the proposed Project’s GHG emissions are cumulatively significant. Please see Response to Comment EJ-15.

GHG emissions are by nature a cumulative impact issue. Unlike air pollutant impacts, there are no substantial direct downwind health or other impacts from GHG emissions sources. GHG emissions affect global climate change regionally in different ways and over long timeframes. The impacts of any one project would have negligible impacts on their own, without considering the overall global trend of GHG emissions, so their impacts are only important cumulatively. Therefore, no separate cumulative impact analysis for GHG emissions is required. The analysis performed determined that the proposed P roject’s GHG emissions are not cumulatively significant.

Response to Comment EJ-49
This comment infers that the proposed Project would have cumulatively considerable impact because the project area has existing poor air quality, is highly industrialized, and is surrounded by affected residential and commercial areas. Additionally, this comment notes the following:
 The IS/ND focused on construction impacts and minimized the significance of operation emissions.  Compliance with existing regulations do not preclude causing significant emissions.

Please see Response to Comment EJ -15 regarding cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project.

The proposed Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), a region where state and federal air quality standards are often exceeded. The SCAQMD has adopted air quality significance thresholds for construction and operations that are protective of public health and would assist the SCAB attain state and federal air quality standards. As discussed in the IS/ND Section 4.3 (Air Quality), the proposed Project is not expected to exceed air quality significance thresholds for construction and operation. Therefore, air quality impacts are considered less than significant.

GHG and criter ia pollutant emissions were analyzed using tools designed for use by local, state, and federal agencies. GHG and criteria pollutant emissions for construction activities were estimated using the latest SCAQMD -recommended California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2.

CalEEMod is a statewide emissions computer model developed for the California Air Pollution Officers Association in collaboration with the California Air Districts. The California Air Districts provide d certain default emissions data to account for local requirements and conditions. The off-road equipment and on- road v ehicle emissions factors used in CalEEMod are from CARB emissions factor models. The IS/ND evaluated criteria pollutant emissions assuming construction year 2021 using the CalEEMod estimated unmitigated fleet average emissions factors, which for off -road equipment during the construction year would be approximately the same as assuming Tier 3 diesel engine standards (not a mitigated Tier 4 fleet).

The construction emission estimates for criteria pollutants were below SCAQMD emission significance thresholds; therefore, construction emissions were determined to have less-than-significant impacts.

APPX_000229

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

September 2021 8-109
Criteria pollutant emissions associated with operation of the new tanks were calculated by SCAQMD based on the information provided by World Oil using the calculations in U.S. EPA AP-42 Section 7.1 (also see Response to Comment EJ -9) to estimate emissions from fixed - and floating-roof storage tanks. The estimated increase in operation on -road criteria and GHG emissions were calculated separately using CARB fleet average emissions factors, and the related increase in loading rack emissions were calculated, and both are presented in IS/ND Appendix A. The calculation of worst -case operation indirect GHG emissions increase from the use of the new tank pumps has also been added to the emissions calculations provided in IS/ND Appendix A. The operation emission estimates for criteria pollutants were below SCAQMD emission significance thresholds; therefore, operation emissions were determined to have less than significant impacts.

The estimated GHG construction emissions were amortized over the SCAQMD -recommended life assumption of 30 years and added to the operations GHG emissions increase. The proposed P roject’s combined GHG emissions from construction and operation are below the GHG emissions significance threshold; therefore, GHG emissions were determined to have less than significant impacts.

Regarding the comment that compliance with existing regulation and laws does not preclude a project causing significant emissions, the commenter states “If they did, the region would not be in extreme non- attainment with Clean Air Act health standards.” This comment disregards the substantial improvements made in air quality over the past several decades and the forecast continued improvement in air quality due to implementation of the existing air quality regulations and laws. If the Project’s emissions or health risk is determined to exceed significance thresholds, regardless of whether the Project is in compliance with all regulations and laws, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures be applied to eliminate or reduce the impacts to less than significant. Otherwise, the impacts are considered to be significant and unavoidable. However, as discussed in IS/ND Section 4.3 ( Air Quality), the proposed Project would not exceed project-specific emissions or health risk thresholds and. Therefore, the project-level impacts would be less than significant and would not be considered cumulatively significant.

Also, please see Response to Comment CP-1.

Response to Comment EJ-50
The comment states that the proposed Project has the potential to result in significant impacts, and the Draft IS/ND is inadequate and requires further evaluation. Please refer to Responses to Comment EJ -30 through EJ-46.

Response to Comment EJ-51
The comment was received by the Port on March 16, 2021, after the close of the public review period which ended on November 20, 2020. It provides updated charts from Appendix G to include additional details (“Application Type”, “Updated Status”, “Issue Date”, and “Estimated Construction Date”), pertaining to the permits granted to storage tanks by the SCAQMD from 2010 to 2020. This updates the attachment to Comment EJ-18. Please see Response to Comment EJ-18. No further response is required.

APPX_000230

BEFORE THE LONG BEACH CITY COUNCIL

APPEAL OF LONG BEACH BOARD OF HARBOR
COMMISSIONER’S APPROVAL OF WORLD OIL TANK
INSTALLATION PROJECT (HD-21-537)

APPENDICES IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
VOLUME 2 OF 3
Bates Nos. APPX_000231–APPX_000380

i

INDEX OF APPENDICES

Appx
No.

Description Vol No. Bates Nos.
1 Comments from Earthjustice, Center for Community
Action and Environmental Justice, San Pedro & Peninsula Homeowners Coalition, and Sierra Club – Angeles Chapter on World Oil Tank Installation Project
(October 27, 2021)
1 of 3 APPX_000001–
APPX_000005
2-1 Port of Long Beach Final Negative Declaration/Application Summary Report on World Oil Tank Installation
(September 2021), Part 1 of 2
1 of 3 APPX_000006–
APPX_000230
2-2 Port of Long Beach Final Negative Declaration/Application Summary Report on World Oil Tank Installation
(September 2021), Part 2 of 2
2 of 3 APPX_000231–
APPX_000380
3 Comments from Earthjustice, Communities for a Better
Environment, East Yard Communities for Environmental
Justice, Center for Biological Diversity, and Coalition for Clean Air on the Draft Initial Study and Negative
Declaration for the World Oil Tank Installation Project (November 11, 2020)
3 of 3 APPX_000381–
APPX_000567
4 Comments from California Coastal Commission on World Oil Tank Installation Project Final IS/ND
(October 26, 2021)
3 of 3 APPX_000568–
APPX_000569

APPENDIX 2-2
Final Negative Declaration/Application Summary Report
on World Oil Tank Installation, Part 2 of 2
September 2021

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

September 2021 8-110
GBKN – Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation Email: World Oil Tank Installation Project Team

GBKN-1
APPX_000231

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

September 2021 8-111

Response to Comments – GBKN
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
Brandy Salas
Admin Specialist
October 28, 2020
Response to Comment GBKN-1
The comment requests a map of the proposed Project. Jennifer Blanchard, POLB Environmental Specialist Associate, provided the requested project map via email on October 28, 2020. No further comment was received from the tribe.

APPX_000232

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

September 2021 8-112
SFERCA – Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California

SFERCA-1
APPX_000233

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

September 2021 8-113

SFERCA-1
cont.

APPX_000234

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

September 2021 8-114

SFERCA-2
SFERCA-3
SFERCA-4
APPX_000235

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

September 2021 8-115

SFERCA-4
cont.

APPX_000236

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

September 2021 8-116

APPX_000237

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

September 2021 8-117

SFERCA-5
APPX_000238

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

September 2021 8-118

SFERCA-5
cont.

APPX_000239

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

September 2021 8-119

APPX_000240

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

September 2021 8-120

SFERCA-6
APPX_000241

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

September 2021 8-121

SFERCA-6
cont.

APPX_000242

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

September 2021 8-122

SFERCA-6
cont.

APPX_000243

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

September 2021 8-123
SFERCA-7
APPX_000244

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

September 2021 8-124
SFERCA-7
cont.

APPX_000245

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

September 2021 8-125
SFERCA-7
cont.

APPX_000246

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

September 2021 8-126

SFERCA-7
cont.

APPX_000247

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

September 2021 8-127
SFERCA-8
APPX_000248

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

September 2021 8-128

SFERCA-8
cont.

APPX_000249

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

September 2021 8-129

SFERCA-9
APPX_000250

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

September 2021 8-130
SFERCA-9
cont.

APPX_000251

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

September 2021 8-131
SFERCA-10
APPX_000252

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

September 2021 8-132

SFERCA-11
APPX_000253

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

September 2021 8-133
SFERCA-11
cont.

APPX_000254

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

September 2021 8-134
SFERCA-12
APPX_000255

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

September 2021 8-135

SFERCA-13
APPX_000256

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

September 2021 8-136
SFERCA-13
cont.

APPX_000257

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

September 2021 8-137
SFERCA-14
APPX_000258

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

September 2021 8-138
SFERCA-15
APPX_000259

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

September 2021 8-139
SFERCA-16
APPX_000260

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

September 2021 8-140

SFERCA-16
cont.

APPX_000261

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

September 2021 8-141

SFERCA-17
APPX_000262

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

September 2021 8-142

SFERCA-18
SFERCA-17
cont.

APPX_000263

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

September 2021 8-143

SFERCA-19
APPX_000264

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

September 2021 8-144

SFERCA-20
SFERCA-19
cont.

APPX_000265

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

September 2021 8-145

SFERCA-20
cont.

APPX_000266

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

September 2021 8-146

SFERCA-20
cont.

APPX_000267

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

September 2021 8-147

SFERCA-21
APPX_000268

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

September 2021 8-148

SFERCA-21
cont.

APPX_000269

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

September 2021 8-149

SFERCA-21
cont.

SFERCA-22
SFERCA-23
APPX_000270

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

September 2021 8-150

SFERCA-23
cont.

SFERCA-24
APPX_000271

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

September 2021 8-151

SFERCA-24
cont.

APPX_000272

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

September 2021 8-152

SFERCA-24
cont.

APPX_000273

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

September 2021 8-153

SFERCA-24
cont.

APPX_000274

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

September 2021 8-154

SFERCA-24
cont.

SFERCA-25
APPX_000275

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

September 2021 8-155

SFERCA-25
cont.

APPX_000276

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

September 2021 8-156

SFERCA-25
cont.

SFERCA-26
APPX_000277

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

September 2021 8-157

SFERCA-26
cont.

APPX_000278

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

September 2021 8-158

SFERCA-27
APPX_000279

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

September 2021 8-159

SFERCA-28
SFERCA-27
cont.

APPX_000280

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

September 2021 8-160

SFERCA-28
cont.

APPX_000281

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

September 2021 8-161

SFERCA-28
cont.

APPX_000282

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

September 2021 8-162

SFERCA-28
cont.

APPX_000283

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

September 2021 8-163

SFERCA-28
cont.

SFERCA-29
APPX_000284

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

September 2021 8-164

SFERCA-29
cont.

APPX_000285

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

September 2021 8-165

SFERCA-29
cont.

APPX_000286

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

September 2021 8-166

SFERCA-29
cont.

APPX_000287

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

September 2021 8-167

SFERCA-30
SFERCA-29
cont.

APPX_000288

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

September 2021 8-168

SFERCA-30
cont.

APPX_000289

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

September 2021 8-169

SFERCA-30
cont.

APPX_000290

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

September 2021 8-170

SFERCA-30
cont.

SFERCA-31
APPX_000291

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

September 2021 8-171

SFERCA-31
cont.

SFERCA-32
APPX_000292

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

September 2021 8-172

SFERCA-32
cont.

APPX_000293

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

September 2021 8-173

APPX_000294

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

September 2021 8-174

APPX_000295

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

September 2021 8-175

APPX_000296

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

September 2021 8-176

APPX_000297

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

September 2021 8-177

SFERCA-34
SFERCA-33
APPX_000298

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

September 2021 8-178

SFERCA-34
cont.

SFERCA-36
SFERCA-35
APPX_000299

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

September 2021 8-179

SFERCA-36
cont.

SFERCA-37
APPX_000300

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

September 2021 8-180

SFERCA-37
cont.

APPX_000301

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

September 2021 8-181

SFERCA-37
cont.

SFERCA-38
APPX_000302

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

September 2021 8-182

SFERCA-38
cont.

APPX_000303

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

September 2021 8-183

SFERCA-38
cont.

APPX_000304

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

September 2021 8-184

SFERCA-38
cont.

APPX_000305

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

September 2021 8-185

SFERCA-38
cont.

APPX_000306

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

September 2021 8-186

SFERCA-38
cont.

APPX_000307

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

September 2021 8-187

SFERCA-38
cont.

APPX_000308

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

September 2021 8-188

SFERCA-38
cont.

APPX_000309

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

September 2021 8-189

SFERCA-38
cont.

APPX_000310

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

September 2021 8-190

SFERCA-38
cont.

APPX_000311

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

September 2021 8-191

SFERCA-38
cont.

APPX_000312

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

September 2021 8-192

SFERCA-38
cont.

APPX_000313

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

September 2021 8-193

SFERCA-38
cont.

APPX_000314

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

September 2021 8-194

SFERCA-38
cont.

APPX_000315

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

September 2021 8-195

SFERCA-38
cont.

SFERCA-39
APPX_000316

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

September 2021 8-196

SFERCA-39
cont.

APPX_000317

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

September 2021 8-197

SFERCA-39
cont.

APPX_000318

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

September 2021 8-198

SFERCA-39
cont.

APPX_000319

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

September 2021 8-199

SFERCA-39
cont.

APPX_000320

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

September 2021 8-200

SFERCA-39
cont.

SFERCA-40
APPX_000321

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

September 2021 8-201

SFERCA-40
cont.

SFERCA-41
APPX_000322

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

September 2021 8-202

SFERCA-41
cont.

APPX_000323

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

September 2021 8-203

SFERCA-41
cont.

APPX_000324

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

September 2021 8-204

SFERCA-41
cont.

SFERCA-42
APPX_000325

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

September 2021 8-205

SFERCA-42
cont.

APPX_000326

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

September 2021 8-206

SFERCA-42
cont.

SFERCA-43
APPX_000327

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

September 2021 8-207

SFERCA-43
cont.

APPX_000328

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

September 2021 8-208

SFERCA-43
cont.

APPX_000329

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

September 2021 8-209

SFERCA-43
cont.

APPX_000330

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

September 2021 8-210

SFERCA-43
cont.

APPX_000331

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

September 2021 8-211

Response to Comments – SFERCA
Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
Paul Encinas, Legal Assistant
October 9, 29, and November 9, 2020
Response to Comment SFERCA-1
The comment requests mailed notice of the availability of any environmental review document related to the proposed Project as well as all hearings and/or actions related to the proposed P roject and provides a contact mailing address and email address. The PO LB has included the commenter on the mailing list for any future mailings or notices related to the proposed project.

Response to Comment SFERCA-2
The comment requests immediate access to all public records related to the proposed P roject, including but not limited to, any and all materials, correspondence, resolutions, memos, notes, analysis, electron ic mail messages, files, maps, charts, and/or any other documents related to the Project.

It is common practice for project-related documents and referenced materials to be included in the administrative record, which is kept on file and available for public review upon request in accordance with the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250, et seq) . On October 9, 2020, the Port received Public Records Request #C008842-100920 from Mr. Paul Encinas, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo via the City of Long Beach’s (City) public records request portal, GovQA portal. On October 22, 2020, the POLB provided all public records related to the proposed Project in .PDF and native file format via the City’s GovQA portal, as requested.

Response to Comment SFERCA-3
The comment summarizes the proposed Project. No further response is required.

Response to Comment SFERCA-4
The comment reiterates the request for immediate access to all public records related to the proposed Project, and any and all documents referenced, relied upon, and incorporated by reference in the Draft IS/ND. Please refer to Response to Comment SFERCA-2.

Response to Comment SFERCA-5
The comment reiterates the request for immediate access to all documents referenced, relied upon, and incorporated by reference in the Draft IS/ND. Please refer to Response to Comment SFERCA-2.

Response to Comment SFERCA-6
The comment requests the remaining documents referenced in the Draft IS/ND pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092(b)(1) and CEQA Guidelines section 15072(g)(4). O n October 29, 2020, the Port received Public Records Request #C009079-102920 from Mr. Paul Encinas, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo via the City of Long Beach’s (City) public records request portal, GovQA portal. On November 3, 2020, the POLB provided the Certificates for Emissions Reduction Credits (ERC Certificates #AQ015139 APPX_000332

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

September 2021 8-212

and #AQ015145) and the SCAQMD modeling files , in .PDF and native file format via the City’s GovQA portal, as requested.

Response to Comment SFERCA-7
This is Exhibit A to SFERCA’s comment letter dated October 29, 2020, which is a duplicate of SFERCA’s letter dated October 9, 2020. Reponses to comments to that letter are provided in Response to Comment SFERCA-2.

Response to Comments SFERCA-8
This is Exhibit B to SFERCA’s Comment Letter dated October 29, 2020, which is email correspondence dated October 14, 2020 regarding Public Records Request # C008842-100920 received by the Port on October 9, 2020. Please refer to Responses to Comments SFERCA-2 and SFERCA-6.

Response to Comment SFERCA-9
This is Exhibit B to SFERCA’s Comment Letter dated October 29, 2020, which is email correspondence dated October 15, 2020 regarding Public Records Request #C008842 -100920 received by the Port on October 9, 2020. The comment request s production of documents and priori tization of the following documents: (1) South Coast Air Quality Management Permit to Construct, Application 614274. Approved 1/2/20 (referenced on IS/ND, pp. 4-8, 7-4) (the Permit Application, Engineering Analysis, and Permit itself); (2) South Coast Air Quality Management Permit to Construct, Application 614275. Approved 1/2/20 (referenced on IS/ND, pp. 4-8, 7-4) (Permit Application, Engineering Analysis, and Permit itself); (3) South Coast Air Quality Management District Applications Evaluations and Calculations, Permit to Construct Evaluation, Application 614274. Approved 8/5/19 (referenced on IS/ND, pp. 4-9, 4-10, 7-4.); (4) All Inputs and Outputs used to Calculate VOC Emissions using U.S. EPA TANKS program (referenced on IS/ND, p. 4- 9 & Table 4.3-2.); (5) All inputs for CalEEMod model, including Engine Tiers for all construction equipment; (6) Supporting data for emissions in Tables 4.3 -2 and 4.3-4 of the IS/ND ; and (7) a copy of the unlocked excel spreadsheets for all of the requested modeling file s. Please refer to Responses to Comment s SFERCA-2 and SFERCA-6.

Response to Comment SFERCA-10
This is Exhibit B to SFERCA’s Comment Letter dated October 29, 2020, which is an email from the Long Beach Public Records Center in reference to Public Records Request reference # C008842-100920 dated October 19, 2020. The email provides notice to Mr. Paul Encinas that the time within which to identify responsive documents was being extended by fourteen (14) calendar days . No further response is required.

Response to Comment SFERCA-11
This is Exhibit B to SFERCA’s Comment Letter dated October 29, 2020, which is email correspondence dated October 19 , 2020 regarding Public Record s Request #C008842-100920 received by the Port on October 9, 2020. Please refer to Responses to Comments SFERCA-2 and SFERCA-6.

Response to Comment SFERCA-12
This is Exhibit B to SFERCA’s Comment Letter dated October 29, 2020, which is email correspondence dated October 20, 2020 regarding Public Records Request #C008842 -100920 received by the Port on APPX_000333

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

September 2021 8-213

October 9, 2020. The comment requests immediate access to documents referenced in the Negative Declaration. Please refer to Responses to Comments SFERCA-2 and SFERCA-6.

Response to Comment SFERCA-13
This is Exhibit B to SFERCA’s Comment Letter dated October 29, 2020, which is email confirmation from the Long Beach Public Records Center confirming submission of Public Records Request Reference #C008842-100920 received by the Port on October 9, 2020. No further response is required.

Response to Comment SFERCA-14
This is Exhibit B to SFERCA’s Comment Letter dated October 29, 2020, which is email confirmation from the City’s GovQA portal in reference to Public Records Request Reference #C008 8958-102020. The email dated October 20, 2020, provides a “Notice” that delays in response times may be experienced due to handling of high priority issues related to COVID -19, Government Code section 6253(c) . No further response is required.

Response to Comment SFERCA-15
This is Exhibit B to SFERCA’s Comment Letter dated October 29, 2020, an email response from Jose Cruz, POLB PRA Coordinator, via the City of Long Beach’s Public Records Requests system, GovQA , confirming that Public Records Request # C008958 -102020, originally received on October 12, 2020, has closed. No further response is required.

Response to Comment SFERCA-16
This is Exhibit B to SFERCA’s Comment Letter dated October 29, 2020, which is an email confirmation from the City of Long Beach’s Public Records Request system, dated October 21, 2020, that Public Records Request # C008958-102020 has been produced. No further response is required.

Response to Comment SFERCA-17
The comment summarizes SAFERCA’s understanding of the proposed Project. No further response is necessary.

Response to Comment SFERCA-18
The comment provides introductory text to the remainder of the comment letter. No further response is required.

Response to Comment SFERCA-19
The comment provides background information on SAFERCA. No further response is necessary.

Response to Comment SFERCA-20
The comment provides background on CEQA and the content and analysis required within an EIR and states that a Negative Declaration (for the proposed Project) is improper, and an EIR is required because the proposed Project may have a significant environmental impact. This is introductory text a nd supporting assertions are provided in the remainder of the comment letter. Please refer to Response s to Comments SFERCA-21 through SFERCA-43.

APPX_000334

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

September 2021 8-214

Response to Comment SFERCA-21
The comment states that the Draft IS/ND provides an inadequate project description that fails to include all potential sources of emissions and therefore does not provide a complete and accurate description of the Project. The comment asserts that because the proposed Project would increase crude oil storage, it would increase crude oil throughput at refineries and result in an increase in refinery emissions.

Please refer to Responses to Comments EJ-13, EJ-14, EJ-19, EJ-20, EJ-21, and EJ-31. The IS/ND included all proposed Project construction and operation emissions sources, including non-stationary operation emissions sources, and minor increases to existing permitted emissions sources, which were not required to be evaluated in World Oil’s application for a SCAQMD permit to construct/permit to operate the new tanks.

Response to Comment SFERCA-22
The comment states that the Draft IS/ND is inadequate because it does not disclose what third -party vendors will do with the existing tanks once they are leased. IS/ND Project Description Sections 2.9 and

2.11 have been revised to clarify that when the existing tanks are leased out to third-party vendors, they are expected to store the same or similar fuel oils as have been historically stored, including different grades of marine fuels such as marine diesel oil, bunker fuel oil, and low sulfur fuel oil.

Response to Comment SFERCA-23
The comment states that the Applicant did not provide enough information to the consultant to “quantitatively estimate emission increases from operation of the new tanks.” Since the release of the Draft IS/ND in October 2020, d ue to the lapse of the previous application for a permit to construct, in February 2021, World Oil submitted to the SCAQMD a new application for a permit to construct/permit to operate for the two new tanks. In addition to the information provided in the previously submitted application, the new permit application includes an additional estimate by the Applicant for the number of new piping components and fugitive VOC e missions and estimates for the very small amount of H 2S
emissions from the operation of the new tanks. SCAQMD has reviewed this permit to construct/permit to operate application and completed its own VOC emissions estimate for the new tanks (SCAQMD, 2021b, 2021c). Final IS/ND Section 4.3 (Air Quality), Table 4.3 -2, has been updated to reflect the updated VOC 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.

As part of the new permit application, and through other information provided to POLB, World Oil provided the necessary information to estimate emissions from the following normal operation emissions sources:
• Tank emissions, now including H2S emissions.
• Tank piping component fugitive emissions
• Vehicle trip emissions increase
• Thermal oxidizer emissions increase
This list represents all of the direct and secondary emissions sources that would be affected by the operation of the new tanks. The increase in petroleum storage capacity would not direct ly affect the emissions from other facilities or fuel users.

APPX_000335

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

September 2021 8-215

Please see Response s to Comments EJ-4, EJ-11, EJ-13, EJ-14, EJ-19, EJ-20, EJ-21, and EJ-31 in relation to comments regarding air permit application, H2S emissions, and life-cycle emissions.

Response to Comment SFERCA-24
This comment asserts that there is fair argument that construction emissions could be significant and further notes that the emissions estimate completed using CalEEMod assumed the use of Tier 4 engines , without identifying it properly as mitigation and so only provided a mitigated emissions estimate.

Construction emissions for the proposed P roject were calculated assuming CalEEMod fleet average off - road equipment and fleet average on-road vehicles. The “fleet average” is the unmitigated case assumed by CalEEMod. No off-road equipment engine mitigation was assumed in the CalEEMod emissions estimate. Fleet average for the assumed construction year (2021) is approximately equivalent on average to assuming Tier 3 equipment. Appendix A (Air Quality Emissions) shows that the exhaust emissions are the same in the unmitigated and mitigation construction emissions tables (see IS/ND Appendix A, pg. A- 3). The only emission reduction controls included in the construction emissions estimate, as summarized in IS/ND Table 4.3-1, were fugitive dust controls that would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust, where compliance with existing law is considered part of the Project, and therefore is not identified as a mitigation measure. Additional clarification regarding the construction off-road equipment and on-road vehicle assumptions has been added to Final IS/ND Section 4.3 (Air Quality), above Table 4.3-

1. This uncontrolled construction emission estimate identified that all pollutant emissions rates are below SCAQMD daily regional and localized significance thresholds. Additionally, the conservatively calculated construction air toxics emissions health risks, combined with the SCAQMD calculated operation health risks were found to be below all SCAQMD health risk significance thresholds. Therefore, no construction emissions mitigation is required under CEQA for the proposed Project, nor does the analysis take credit for the use of Tier 4 off-road construction equipment.

While no mitigation is required under CEQA for the proposed Project, 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 P ort’s Construction Air Quality Best Management Practice (BMP) for off -road equipment engines . Section 4.3 (Air Quality) and Section 5 (Application Summary Report) have been revised to add a new Special Condition to require the use of Tier 4 off-road engines in construction equipment. Use of Tier 4 off-road construction equipment for the proposed Project would substantially reduce the on-site construction NOx and DPM emissions from the estimated levels already found to create less than significant air quality impacts.

Response to Comment SFERCA-25
This comment states that there is fair argument that operation VOC emissions could be significant and further notes that the SCAQMD permitting emissions estimate using the U.S. EPA TANKS model provides underestimated emissions for the two new tanks. Please see Response to Comment EJ-9.

Response to Comment SFERCA-26
This comment states that the IS/ND omits numerous sources of VOC emissions associated with operations and fails to consider indirect emissions. A portion of this comment reiterates issues regarding use of the U.S. EPA TANKS emissions model. Please see Response to Comment EJ-9 which addresses SCAQMD revision from the use of the TANKS model to the use of the latest U.S. EPA AP -42 Section 7.1 Organic APPX_000336

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

September 2021 8-216

Liquid Storage Tank calculation methods to estimate emissions for the new tanks ’ air quality permit to construct/permit to operate application.

The comment also notes that tank dewatering emissions have not been considered. Please see Response to Comment EJ-14.

This comment also notes tank inspection and cleaning emissions have not been disclosed. The comment further notes that the VOC emissions during degassing and tank cleaning are essentially uncontrolled. This statement is not completely factual as emission controls are required during these tank inspection and cleaning events; these events occur with a very low frequency (approximately every 10 years). Specifically, tank inspection and cleaning events must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1149 – Storage Tank an d Pipeline Cleaning and Degassing. If a tank is subject to Rule 1149 at the time it is being emptied and prepared for cleaning, the vapor space of the tank will be vented (degassed) to a portable rental thermal oxidizer until the vapor space is monitored to be below 5,000 ppm for at least an hour. Vacuum trucks hired to assist in removal of material from a tank are required to comply with Rule 1149. World Oil verifies that vacuum trucks are compliant with AQMD rules prior to hiring. Typically, vacuum trucks are equipped with an integral carbon canister for organic vapor control or bring a towable trailer with carbon canister for organic vapor control. Vacuum truck operators are required to ensure that their equipment is leak free by monitoring their trucks and equipment each time they are used. Since these maintenance events are infrequent and controlled, and that regular emissions do not occur from the tanks concurrent with these maintenance events, the emissions from these events are not expected to increase the tanks VOC emissions above normal operations.

The emissions estimate for the two new petroleum storage tanks has been revised as part of the new Permit to Construct/Permit to Operate Application to the SCAQMD (see R esponse to Comment EJ-7).

SCAQMD is the responsible agency for the tank emissions estimate; however, the POLB has reviewed the new World Oil permit application for the two tanks, provide comments on the permit application, and continues to consult with SCAQMD during their permitting process. The IS/ND has been revised to address any changes and additions to the SCAQMD emissions estimate for the new permit application.

Response to Comment SFERCA-27
The comment states that the IS/ND improperly relies on emission offsets to reduce VOC emissions and that VOC offsets are not valid to be used for CEQA mitigation.

The IS/ND does not rely on emissions offsets to reduce or mitigate VOC emissions under CEQA . The proposed 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). T he 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 reduction 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.

Response to Comment SFERCA-28
This comment notes that evidence support s a fair argument that the P roject will produce cumulatively considerable air quality impacts. Please see Responses to Comments EJ-13 and EJ-15.

APPX_000337

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

September 2021 8-217

Response to Comment SFERCA-29
This comment contends that there is a fair argument that the Project would result in potentially significant health risk impacts, that the IS/ND did not provide a discussion, supported by evidence, of the nature and magnitude of impacts of air pollution on public health. The comment also argues that the IS/ND was legally deficient as the risk assessment modeling should have been supplied with the IS/ND. The comment provides the following additional specific arguments:
• The Project’s VOC emissions and benzene emissions are underestimated, so the actual health risk would be significant.
• The significant health impacts are undisclosed and were not mitigated. • The IS/ND did not evaluate impacts to all sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. • The IS/ND did not evaluate health impacts from the P roject’s VOC emissions downwind ozone formation.

The air quality impacts assessment was prepared in accordance with published SCAQMD methods and guidelines that include assessment of regional impacts, localized impacts for criteria pollutants, and health risk assessment (cancer, chronic, acute health impacts) for toxic air contaminants. Discussion, supported by evidence, was provided for these impact analyses.

Please see Response to Comment EJ-9 that addresses similar comments related to the VOC and benzene emissions estimates. The VOC and benzene emissions associated with operation of the proposed new tanks were estimated by SCAQMD, as the responsible agency for issuing the permit to construct/permit to operate, using U.S. EPA-approved emissions estimation methods (SCAQMD, 2021b, 2021c).

The IS/ND disclosed the nearest sensitive receptor locations, identified their locations and distances from the project site, and provided the worst-case risks identified for the maximum exposed sensitive receptor location. Given that the worst-case health risk impacts were found to be less than significant no additional analysis was necessary. There is no requirement to list all sensitive receptors surrounding a site that would be subject to less than significant project impacts. See also Response to Comment EJ-10.

Downwind ozone formation resulting from VOC emissions as a precursor pollutant in the regional context would be indirect, in contrast with the direct effects of Project’s TAC emissions health risk impacts addressed above. SCAQMD control strategies in the AQMP are designed to address downwind ozone formation and prevent adverse ozone health risks in the region. The IS/ND shows that the proposed Project would not conflict with the AQMP, and VOC emissions of less than 11 lbs/day (as shown in IS/ND Table 4.3-2) would be well below the SCAQMD daily emissions thresholds that are set at levels to identify potentially significant impacts to ozone from VOC as a precursor. For context , these emissions would be a 0.000026 fraction of the daily VOC emissions estimated for the Los Angeles portion of the South Coast Air Basin in 2020 (CARB, 2016).
9 No additional analysis is necessary.

Response to Comment SFERCA-30
The comment asserts that the proposed P roject is inconsistent with the City of Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element. The proposed P roject does not result in significant air quality impacts or cumulative impacts and thus, does not require mitigation. The proposed P roject would result in negligible emissions during construction and operation that are well below SCAQMD health risk significance thresholds.

9Assumes VOC is equivalent to ROG for this type of emissions source.

APPX_000338

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

September 2021 8-218

Therefore, the proposed Project is not inconsistent with the City’s General Plan. Please also refer to Response to Comment EJ-15.

The comment also asserts that the proposed P roject is inconsistent with the Port Master Plan (PMP).

Section IV (Land Use Designations, Goals, Objectives, and Lon g-Range Plans ) of the Port Master Plan, Update 1990 states the following (POLB, 1990):

The long-range planning goals and objectives for the Port are essential for developing policies involving future Port development and expansion. These planning goals are intended to be general to maintain flexibility and respond to Port tenant needs. In addition, since development policies are driven by national and international economic trends, general goals allow the Port to respond to immediate and short -term requirements dictated by these trends.

The POLB’s planning goals include the following:
 Goal 1. Consolidating similar and compatible land and water areas  Goal 2. Encouraging maximum use of facilities
 Goal 3. Improving terminal circulation involving roadways and rail  Goal 4. Providing for the safe cargo handling and movement of vessels within the port  Goal 5. Developing land for primary port facilities and port-related uses  Goal 6. Protecting, maintaining, and enhancing the overall quality of the coastal environment The proposed Project would occur in an existing terminal and continue to support similar operations. The proposed Project would support the modernization and efficiency of the existing World Oil Terminal by increasing liquid bulk capacity a nd maximizing the use of the existing facility. Based on the Land Use Designations, Goals, Objectives, and Long -Range Plans chapter of the PMP, development that accommodates the consolidation of land uses and encourages the maximum use of facilities is consistent with the POLB’s goals.

The comment also states that the proposed P roject is inconsistent with the PMP’s permitting policies because the P roject has not yet met the requirements of CEQA and thus, the Board of Harbor Commissioners may not approve the application for the Harbor Development Permit (HDP).

As stated in IS/ND Section 1.1 (Proposed Project Overview), Ribost Terminal LLC, DBA World Oil Terminals (World Oil) filed an Application for a n HDP with the POLB on August 14, 2019, to construct and operate the proposed Project. As a public agency, with jurisdiction and discretionary authority for the issuance of HDPs in the Long Beach Harbor District, pursuant to the California Coastal Act and Long Beach City Charter 1215, the POLB, acting by and through the Board of Harbor Commissioners , is required to comply with CEQA by analyzing the potential environmental impacts o f the proposed Project. As such, this IS/ND and Application Summary Report (Section 5.0 of the IS/ND) have been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Port’s Guidelines for the Implementation of the Certified PMP. A Notice of Intent to adopt the ND and public hearing will be issued for the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners to consider adoption/approval of the IS/ND and Application Summary Report and issuance of an HDP for the proposed Project. Please also see IS/ND Section 1.2.1 (CEQA Process).

Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the PMP’s permitting policies.

APPX_000339

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

September 2021 8-219

Response to Comment SFERCA-31
The comment states that approval of the proposed P roject would violate the California Coastal Act because it would result in significant air quality and public health impacts and fails to minimize these impacts. Please refer to Response to Comment EJ -15 regarding the proposed P roject’s cumulative air quality impacts. The proposed Project would not result in any significant or cumulatively considerable air quality or public health impacts and therefore, does not require mitigation. Approval of the proposed Project would not violate the California Coastal Act. Please refer to Responses to Comment SFERCA-30 regarding the proposed Project’s conformance with the certified PMP and Comment Set CCC. Please also refer to IS/ND Section 5.1 (California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis) for a discussion of how the proposed Project is consistent with the California Coastal Act.

Response to Comment SFERCA-32
The comment concludes the previous statements made, and states that the Draft IS/ND must be thoroughly revised and recirculated as an EIR. Please see Responses to Comment EJ -15 and SFERCA-21 through SFERCA-31.

Response to Comment SFERCA-33
The comment summarizes the proposed Project. No further response is required.

Response to Comment SFERCA-34
The comment provides introductory text stating that the Draft IS/ND is incomplete, has failed to identify and mitigate significant environmental impacts, and that an EIR must be prepared. Please see Responses to Comment SFERCA-35 through SFERCA-43.

Response to Comment SFERCA-35
The comment references the Technical Appendix’s author, Phyllis Fox’s resume and experience . No further response required.

Response to Comment SFERCA-36
This comment states that the Project’s construction emissions are significant and that emissions calculations are unsupported. Please see Response to Comment SFERCA -2. All requested files , including emissions estimate files, have been prov ided in a readily accessible format, or in the requested format such as the CalEEMod input file.

The comment asserts that construction schedule, equipment use, equipment horsepower, etc. are not provided; however, the CalEEMod output file presented in Appendix A provides all this information (See IS/ND Appendix A, pg. A -4). The comment further notes that the PRA request ed all the CalEEMod files, specifically inputs including information on engine tiers for construction equipment and instead an Excel spreadsheet that was not the input file was provided that summarized input values. CalEEMod input files are saved in the fo rm of Excel files (.xls), and th e Excel file provides all assumed inputs values . T his CalEEMod input Excel file was provided along with the CalEEMod output file. All unedited original format emissions and health risk assessment files, which are requested by SCAQMD to be provided with CEQA documents, were provided to address the PRA request. Please also see Response to Comment SFERCA-24.

APPX_000340

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

September 2021 8-220

The comment also presents a CalEEMod input file off-road equipment table from an air quality screening analysis performed prior to the start of the IS/ND, which helped the POLB assess whether the proposed Project would result in significant air quality impacts . This air quality screening analysis used preliminary project information and was not used in the Draft IS/ND. These preliminary air quality screening emissions files were provided to fully address the PRA request.

The Draft IS/ND emissions input and output files were also provided as part of the PRA request. T hese files show that Tier 4 equipment w as not assumed in the construction emissions analysis. See also Response to Comment SFERCA-24.

Response to Comment SFERCA-37
This comment is from the attached Technical Appendix to the Comment Letter and provides additional details to support Comment SFERCA-24. Please see Response to Comment SFERCA-24.

Response to Comment SFERCA-38
This comment is from the attached Technical Appendix to the Comment Letter and provides additional details to support Comment SFERCA-25. Please see Response to Comment SFERCA-25.

Response to Comment SFERCA-39
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.

Response to Comment SFERCA-40
This comment is from the attached Technical Appendix to the Comment Letter and provides additional details to support Comment SFERCA-27. Please see Response to Comment SFERCA-27.

Response to Comment SFERCA-41
This comment is from the attached Technical Appendix to the Comment Letter and provides additional details to support Comment SFERCA-29. Please see Response to Comment SFERCA-29.

Response to Comment SFERCA-42
This comment is from the attached Technical Appendix to the Comment Letter and provides additional details to support Comments SFERCA -28 and SFERCA-29. Please see R esponse to Comments SFERCA-28 and SFERCA-29.

Response to Comment SFERCA-43
This comment states that the IS/ND failed to demonstrate that the increase in VOC emissions would not cause a violation or make significantly worse an existing violation of [ozone], resulting in significant health impacts. Please see Response to Comment EJ-10.

APPX_000341

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

September 2021 8-221
DF – Dianne Flowers

DF-1
DF-2
DF-3
APPX_000342

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

September 2021 8-222

DF-3
cont.

DF-5
DF-4
APPX_000343

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

September 2021 8-223
Response to Comments – DF
Dianne Flowers
November 20, 2020
Response to Comment DF-1
Thank you for your review of the Draft IS/ND. The comment states that the POLB must deny the proposed Project because it would increase fuel capacity at a fossil fuel facility, whereas the POLB should be incrementally reducing existing fossil fuel faciliti es instead to meet zero emission target dates . Your opposition to and comments on the proposed Project are acknowledged for the record and are before the decision-makers for their consideration prior to taking any action on the proposed Project.

World Oil Terminals operates their facility on privately owned property at Pier C within the Long Beach Harbor District. The POLB is obligated to review the proposed Project under CEQA for the issuance of a Harbor Development Permit, which is a consolidated coastal development permit pursuant to the California Coastal Act of 1976 and a building permit pursuant to Long Beach City Charter Section 1215.

The proposed Project would not involve or affect other fossil fuel facilities such as oil production sites or refinery activities because the facility’s purpose is solely to store and transport petroleum products. This limited project purpose does not involve large emissions sources. Petroleum production and refining processes are separate activities not influenced by the proposed Project’s storage capacity. The proposed Project would nominally increase fuel storage capacity at the facility to allow for overall terminal operational efficiencies. As discussed in Section 2.11 (Operations and Maintenance) of the IS/ND, t he proposed Project would not allow for greater actual crude throughput beyond the permitted limits through the pipelines, tanks, or loading racks.

The facility and its use are allowable within Long Beach Harbor Planning District 2 – Northeast Harbor under the POLB’s certified 1990 PMP. Please see Response to Comment SFERCA-30 regarding the Project’s consistency with the PMP. As described in IS/ND Section 2.6 (General Plan Designation), the City of Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the pr oject area as a Regional -Serving Facility, which allows for “businesses and operations that not only serve the City of Long Beach, but also the region and parts of the nation.” This zoning type is consistent with Light, Medium, General, and Port-related Industrial Zoning Districts.

The commenter asserts that the Port “should be looking to implement plans for incremental reductions in existing fossil fuel facilities in order to meet zero emission target dates .” The IS/ND Section 4.8 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) identifies the Port’s Clean Air Action Plan ( CAAP) and regulations under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard that drive progress towards zero emissions efforts. Compliance with the State Low Carbon Fuel Standard regulations will drive f uel suppliers to transition away from fossil fuel production and into renewable fuels (such as biofuels ) over time ( ADI Analytics , 2021) . The proposed Project could aid World Oil’s future ability to transition to the storage of renewable fuels (for example, by replacing petroleum storage with waste vegetable oil storage) , if required in the future to comply with State regulations (ADI Analytics, 2021) . Any future modifications at the facility needed to implement storage of renewable fuels would be subject to CEQA and review, as applicable if appropriate.

See also Responses to Comments CP-1 and EJ-19.

APPX_000344

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

September 2021 8-224
Response to Comment DF-2
The comment states that an ND is insufficient, and a full environmental review must be completed. The POLB, as the lead agency, followed the environmental review process required by CEQA, beginning with an IS (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063). Information from an IS provides the basis for a lead a gency under CEQA to determine whether an environmental impact report (EIR) is necessary or if a project can be modified to mitigate adverse environmental effects before an (EIR) is prepared. The IS/ND is adequate and complete because it sufficiently analyzes all potential environmental impacts, concluding that the proposed Project would have less-than-significant impacts to the environment, including air quality, public health, and climate change (see IS/ND Section 4.2 [Air Quality ] and Section 4.8 [Greenhouse Gas Emissions]). As such, mitigation measures are not required for the proposed Project. Please also see Responses to Comments EJ-13, EJ-14, EJ-19, EJ-20, EJ-21, and EJ-31.

Response to Comment DF-3
The comment does not provide any specific questions or comments on the Draft IS/ND or the proposed Project, but rather expresses concern that communities near the Port of Long Beach have been adversely impacted by the COVID -19 pandemic and the pollution from the ports and ports -generated goods movement. The proposed Project would not involve the use of cruise ships, cargo ships, or oil tankers during construction or operation. Because this comment is general and does not relate to the content or adequacy of the Draft IS/ND, no formal response is required under CEQA.

Response to Comment DF-4
This comment does not provide any specific questions or comments on the Draft IS/ND or the proposed Project. The commenter expresses concern about air quality, public health, and climate change related to wildfires and port and freight activity. As discussed in the IS/ND, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts to the environment. Please also refer to Responses to Comments DF-1, DF-2, DF- 3, and SFERCA-30.

Response to Comment DF-5
The comment requests that the POLB deny the proposed Project and complete an EIR because a n ND is improper. However, the commenter does not provide evidence from the IS/ND that supports why it is an insufficient document. Please also see Responses to Comment DF-1 through DF-4.

APPX_000345

Appendix A
Air Quality Emissions

A-1
APPX_000346
APPX_000347

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population User Defined Industrial 2.00 User Defined Unit 0.30 0.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
11 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2022Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:04 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer World Oil Tanks Installation
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Two Tank Construction Project Land Use - Tank Area Assumed to be 180' by 80'
Construction Phase - Applicant dates for first two tasks, added a finishing task with tank painting and mechanical/piping interconnection.

Off-road Equipment - Added a man lift to the CalEEMod default for this phase.

Off-road Equipment - Applicant equipment list plus the addition of an excavator and grader for grading purposes. Used CalEEMod default for hp, except where applicant estimate was greater
Off-road Equipment - Added welders to the equipment list for tank erection, using CalEEMod default horsepower.

Off-road Equipment - Applicants equipment HP corrected using CalEEMod defaults, Bore/drill rig category used for pile driver.

Trips and VMT - From applicant, with addition for architectural coating workers and fuel/sanitary, etc. vendor trips. Used CalEEMod trip distance defaults, except for site preparation phase haul trips which was adjusted to applicant assumptions.

Grading - Conservative assumptions, including no backloading, on bulk material import/export.

Architectural Coating - Coating VOC emissions, due to variable paint types and coating thickness assumptions, are calculated separately.

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Assumes SCAQMD Rule 403 compliant watering during excavation/foundation phases where there is exposed

areas and bulk material handling.

A-2
APPX_000348

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021

3.1789 32.2635 23.2204 0.0605 0.5040 1.2945 1.7985 0.1341 1.2015 1.3356 0.0000 5,865.659 1 5,865.659
1 1.5574 0.0000 5,904.592
7 Maximum 3.1789 32.2635 23.2204 0.0605 0.5040 1.2945 1.7985 0.1341 1.2015 1.3356 0.0000 5,865.659 1 5,865.659
1 1.5574 0.0000 5,904.592
7 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021

3.1789 32.2635 23.2204 0.0605 0.4993 1.2945 1.7938 0.1336 1.2015 1.3351 0.0000 5,865.659 1 5,865.659
1 1.5574 0.0000 5,904.592
7 Maximum 3.1789 32.2635 23.2204 0.0605 0.4993 1.2945 1.7938 0.1336 1.2015 1.3351 0.0000 5,865.659 1 5,865.659
1 1.5574 0.0000 5,904.592
7 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:04 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.26 0.42 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A-3
APPX_000349

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/4/2021 5/10/2021 5 91 Excavation 2 Tank Construction Building Construction 4/26/2021 10/28/2021 5 134 Tank Erection 3 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/18/2021 11/18/2021 5 24 Tank painting and piping/mechanical
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5
; Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0; Acres of Paving: 0; Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) OffRoad Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:04 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Bore/Drill Rigs 1 7.00 350 0.50
Site Preparation Cranes 2 7.00 231 0.29
Site Preparation Excavators 1 7.00 158 0.38
Site Preparation Graders 1 7.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Tank Construction Aerial Lifts 1 3.00 63 0.31
Tank Construction Cranes 2 3.00 231 0.29
Tank Construction Welders 2 7.00 46 0.45
Architectural Coating Aerial Lifts 1 6.00 63 0.31
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 8

16.00 2.00 278.00 14.70 6.90 40.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Tank Construction 5 16.00 2.00 48.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 2 8.00 2.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT A-4
APPX_000350

3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.6700e-
003

0.0000

7.6700e-
003

9.1000e-
004

0.0000 9.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.1271 23.8277 16.5528 0.0417 1.0039 1.0039 0.9236 0.9236 4,035.6111 4,035.6111 1.3052 4,068.241 0 Total 2.1271 23.8277 16.5528 0.0417 7.6700e-
003

1.0039 1.0116 9.1000e-
004

0.9236 0.9245 4,035.611
1 4,035.611
1 1.3052 4,068.241
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling

0.0461 1.3542 0.3493 4.4400e-
003

0.1068 4.9200e-
003

0.1117 0.0293 4.7100e-
003

0.0340 482.2464 482.2464 0.0303 483.0050
Vendor 6.0800e-
003

0.1942 0.0508 5.1000e-
004

0.0128 4.0000e-
004

0.0132 3.6900e-
003

3.8000e-
004

4.0700e-
003

54.9761 54.9761 3.2400e-
003

55.0571
Worker 0.0686 0.0471 0.6444 1.8300e-
003

0.1788 1.4500e-
003

0.1803 0.0474 1.3300e-
003

0.0488 182.2032 182.2032 5.3700e-
003
182.3374
Total 0.1208 1.5956 1.0445 6.7800e-
003

0.2984 6.7700e-
003

0.3052 0.0804 6.4200e-
003

0.0868 719.4257 719.4257 0.0390 720.3995
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:04 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
A-5
APPX_000351

3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 2.9900e-
003

0.0000

2.9900e-
003

3.5000e-
004

0.0000 3.5000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.1271 23.8277 16.5528 0.0417 1.0039 1.0039 0.9236 0.9236 0.0000 4,035.6111 4,035.6111 1.3052 4,068.241 0 Total 2.1271 23.8277 16.5528 0.0417 2.9900e-
003

1.0039 1.0069 3.5000e-
004

0.9236 0.9239 0.0000 4,035.611
1 4,035.611
1 1.3052 4,068.241
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling

0.0461 1.3542 0.3493 4.4400e-
003

0.1068 4.9200e-
003

0.1117 0.0293 4.7100e-
003

0.0340 482.2464 482.2464 0.0303 483.0050
Vendor 6.0800e-
003

0.1942 0.0508 5.1000e-
004

0.0128 4.0000e-
004

0.0132 3.6900e-
003

3.8000e-
004

4.0700e-
003

54.9761 54.9761 3.2400e-
003

55.0571
Worker 0.0686 0.0471 0.6444 1.8300e-
003

0.1788 1.4500e-
003

0.1803 0.0474 1.3300e-
003

0.0488 182.2032 182.2032 5.3700e-
003
182.3374
Total 0.1208 1.5956 1.0445 6.7800e-
003

0.2984 6.7700e-
003

0.3052 0.0804 6.4200e-
003

0.0868 719.4257 719.4257 0.0390 720.3995
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:04 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer A-6
APPX_000352

3.3 Tank Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road

0.8534 6.5028 4.9054 9.4300e-
003

0.2817 0.2817 0.2695 0.2695 843.1225 843.1225 0.2025 848.1858 Total 0.8534 6.5028 4.9054 9.4300e-
003

0.2817 0.2817 0.2695 0.2695 843.1225 843.1225 0.2025 848.1858 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling

2.9900e-
003

0.0961 0.0225 2.8000e-
004

6.2600e-
003

2.9000e-
004

6.5600e-
003

1.7200e-
003

2.8000e-
004

2.0000e-
003

30.3205 30.3205 2.0600e-
003

30.3719
Vendor 6.0800e-
003

0.1942 0.0508 5.1000e-
004

0.0128 4.0000e-
004

0.0132 3.6900e-
003

3.8000e-
004

4.0700e-
003

54.9761 54.9761 3.2400e-
003

55.0571
Worker 0.0686 0.0471 0.6444 1.8300e-
003

0.1788 1.4500e-
003

0.1803 0.0474 1.3300e-
003

0.0488 182.2032 182.2032 5.3700e-
003
182.3374
Total 0.0777 0.3374 0.7177 2.6200e-
003

0.1979 2.1400e-
003

0.2001 0.0528 1.9900e-
003

0.0548 267.4998 267.4998 0.0107 267.7664
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:04 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer A-7
APPX_000353

3.3 Tank Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road

0.8534 6.5028 4.9054 9.4300e-
003

0.2817 0.2817 0.2695 0.2695 0.0000 843.1225 843.1225 0.2025 848.1858 Total 0.8534 6.5028 4.9054 9.4300e-
003

0.2817 0.2817 0.2695 0.2695 0.0000 843.1225 843.1225 0.2025 848.1858 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling

2.9900e-
003

0.0961 0.0225 2.8000e-
004

6.2600e-
003

2.9000e-
004

6.5600e-
003

1.7200e-
003

2.8000e-
004

2.0000e-
003

30.3205 30.3205 2.0600e-
003

30.3719
Vendor 6.0800e-
003

0.1942 0.0508 5.1000e-
004

0.0128 4.0000e-
004

0.0132 3.6900e-
003

3.8000e-
004

4.0700e-
003

54.9761 54.9761 3.2400e-
003

55.0571
Worker 0.0686 0.0471 0.6444 1.8300e-
003

0.1788 1.4500e-
003

0.1803 0.0474 1.3300e-
003

0.0488 182.2032 182.2032 5.3700e-
003
182.3374
Total 0.0777 0.3374 0.7177 2.6200e-
003

0.1979 2.1400e-
003

0.2001 0.0528 1.9900e-
003

0.0548 267.4998 267.4998 0.0107 267.7664
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:04 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer A-8
APPX_000354

3.4 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2470 1.9773 2.6381 4.2300e-
003

0.1027 0.1027 0.1020 0.1020 403.4129 403.4129 0.0588 404.8820 Total 0.2470 1.9773 2.6381 4.2300e-
003

0.1027 0.1027 0.1020 0.1020 403.4129 403.4129 0.0588 404.8820 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 6.0800e-
003

0.1942 0.0508 5.1000e-
004

0.0128 4.0000e-
004

0.0132 3.6900e-
003

3.8000e-
004

4.0700e-
003

54.9761 54.9761 3.2400e-
003

55.0571
Worker 0.0343 0.0236 0.3222 9.1000e-
004

0.0894 7.2000e-
004

0.0901 0.0237 6.7000e-
004

0.0244 91.1016 91.1016 2.6800e-
003

91.1687
Total 0.0404 0.2178 0.3730 1.4200e-
003

0.1022 1.1200e-
003

0.1033 0.0274 1.0500e-
003

0.0285 146.0777 146.0777 5.9200e-
003
146.2258
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:04 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer A-9
APPX_000355

3.4 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2470 1.9773 2.6381 4.2300e-
003

0.1027 0.1027 0.1020 0.1020 0.0000 403.4129 403.4129 0.0588 404.8820 Total 0.2470 1.9773 2.6381 4.2300e-
003

0.1027 0.1027 0.1020 0.1020 0.0000 403.4129 403.4129 0.0588 404.8820 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 6.0800e-
003

0.1942 0.0508 5.1000e-
004

0.0128 4.0000e-
004

0.0132 3.6900e-
003

3.8000e-
004

4.0700e-
003

54.9761 54.9761 3.2400e-
003

55.0571
Worker 0.0343 0.0236 0.3222 9.1000e-
004

0.0894 7.2000e-
004

0.0901 0.0237 6.7000e-
004

0.0244 91.1016 91.1016 2.6800e-
003

91.1687
Total 0.0404 0.2178 0.3730 1.4200e-
003

0.1022 1.1200e-
003

0.1033 0.0274 1.0500e-
003

0.0285 146.0777 146.0777 5.9200e-
003
146.2258
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:04 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer A-10
APPX_000356

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021

3.1956 32.3049 23.1325 0.0602 0.5040 1.2945 1.7985 0.1341 1.2016 1.3357 0.0000 5,836.354 3 5,836.354
3 1.5578 0.0000 5,875.299
7 Maximum 3.1956 32.3049 23.1325 0.0602 0.5040 1.2945 1.7985 0.1341 1.2016 1.3357 0.0000 5,836.354 3 5,836.354
3 1.5578 0.0000 5,875.299
7 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021

3.1956 32.3049 23.1325 0.0602 0.4993 1.2945 1.7938 0.1336 1.2016 1.3351 0.0000 5,836.354 3 5,836.354
3 1.5578 0.0000 5,875.299
7 Maximum 3.1956 32.3049 23.1325 0.0602 0.4993 1.2945 1.7938 0.1336 1.2016 1.3351 0.0000 5,836.354 3 5,836.354
3 1.5578 0.0000 5,875.299
7 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:06 AMWorld Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter World Oil Tanks Installation
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.26 0.42 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A-11
APPX_000357

3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.6700e-
003

0.0000

7.6700e-
003

9.1000e-
004

0.0000 9.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.1271 23.8277 16.5528 0.0417 1.0039 1.0039 0.9236 0.9236 4,035.611 1 4,035.6111 1.3052 4,068.241
0 Total 2.1271 23.8277 16.5528 0.0417 7.6700e-
003

1.0039 1.0116 9.1000e-
004

0.9236 0.9245 4,035.611
1 4,035.611
1 1.3052 4,068.241
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling

0.0467 1.3852 0.3597 4.4000e-
003

0.1068 4.9600e-
003

0.1117 0.0293 4.7400e-
003

0.0340 477.7669 477.7669 0.0310 478.5408
Vendor 6.3800e-
003

0.1938 0.0562 5.0000e-
004

0.0128 4.1000e-
004

0.0132 3.6900e-
003

3.9000e-
004

4.0800e-
003

53.4691 53.4691 3.4500e-
003

53.5554
Worker 0.0763 0.0522 0.5892 1.7200e-
003

0.1788 1.4500e-
003

0.1803 0.0474 1.3300e-
003

0.0488 171.5602 171.5602 5.0500e-
003
171.6864
Total 0.1294 1.6312 1.0051 6.6200e-
003

0.2984 6.8200e-
003

0.3052 0.0804 6.4600e-
003

0.0869 702.7962 702.7962 0.0395 703.7825
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:06 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter A-12
APPX_000358

3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 2.9900e-
003

0.0000

2.9900e-
003

3.5000e-
004

0.0000 3.5000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.1271 23.8277 16.5528 0.0417 1.0039 1.0039 0.9236 0.9236 0.0000 4,035.6111 4,035.6111 1.3052 4,068.241 0 Total 2.1271 23.8277 16.5528 0.0417 2.9900e-
003

1.0039 1.0069 3.5000e-
004

0.9236 0.9239 0.0000 4,035.611
1 4,035.611
1 1.3052 4,068.241
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling

0.0467 1.3852 0.3597 4.4000e-
003

0.1068 4.9600e-
003

0.1117 0.0293 4.7400e-
003

0.0340 477.7669 477.7669 0.0310 478.5408
Vendor 6.3800e-
003

0.1938 0.0562 5.0000e-
004

0.0128 4.1000e-
004

0.0132 3.6900e-
003

3.9000e-
004

4.0800e-
003

53.4691 53.4691 3.4500e-
003

53.5554
Worker 0.0763 0.0522 0.5892 1.7200e-
003

0.1788 1.4500e-
003

0.1803 0.0474 1.3300e-
003

0.0488 171.5602 171.5602 5.0500e-
003
171.6864
Total 0.1294 1.6312 1.0051 6.6200e-
003

0.2984 6.8200e-
003

0.3052 0.0804 6.4600e-
003

0.0869 702.7962 702.7962 0.0395 703.7825
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:06 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter A-13
APPX_000359

3.3 Tank Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road

0.8534 6.5028 4.9054 9.4300e-
003

0.2817 0.2817 0.2695 0.2695 843.1225 843.1225 0.2025 848.1858 Total 0.8534 6.5028 4.9054 9.4300e-
003

0.2817 0.2817 0.2695 0.2695 843.1225 843.1225 0.2025 848.1858 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling

3.0600e-
003

0.0973 0.0239 2.7000e-
004

6.2600e-
003

3.0000e-
004

6.5600e-
003

1.7200e-
003

2.9000e-
004

2.0000e-
003

29.7952 29.7952 2.1300e-
003

29.8485
Vendor 6.3800e-
003

0.1938 0.0562 5.0000e-
004

0.0128 4.1000e-
004

0.0132 3.6900e-
003

3.9000e-
004

4.0800e-
003

53.4691 53.4691 3.4500e-
003

53.5554
Worker 0.0763 0.0522 0.5892 1.7200e-
003

0.1788 1.4500e-
003

0.1803 0.0474 1.3300e-
003

0.0488 171.5602 171.5602 5.0500e-
003
171.6864
Total 0.0857 0.3432 0.6693 2.4900e-
003

0.1979 2.1600e-
003

0.2001 0.0528 2.0100e-
003

0.0548 254.8245 254.8245 0.0106 255.0903
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:06 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter A-14
APPX_000360

3.3 Tank Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road

0.8534 6.5028 4.9054 9.4300e-
003

0.2817 0.2817 0.2695 0.2695 0.0000 843.1225 843.1225 0.2025 848.1858 Total 0.8534 6.5028 4.9054 9.4300e-
003

0.2817 0.2817 0.2695 0.2695 0.0000 843.1225 843.1225 0.2025 848.1858 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling

3.0600e-
003

0.0973 0.0239 2.7000e-
004

6.2600e-
003

3.0000e-
004

6.5600e-
003

1.7200e-
003

2.9000e-
004

2.0000e-
003

29.7952 29.7952 2.1300e-
003

29.8485
Vendor 6.3800e-
003

0.1938 0.0562 5.0000e-
004

0.0128 4.1000e-
004

0.0132 3.6900e-
003

3.9000e-
004

4.0800e-
003

53.4691 53.4691 3.4500e-
003

53.5554
Worker 0.0763 0.0522 0.5892 1.7200e-
003

0.1788 1.4500e-
003

0.1803 0.0474 1.3300e-
003

0.0488 171.5602 171.5602 5.0500e-
003
171.6864
Total 0.0857 0.3432 0.6693 2.4900e-
003

0.1979 2.1600e-
003

0.2001 0.0528 2.0100e-
003

0.0548 254.8245 254.8245 0.0106 255.0903
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:06 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter A-15
APPX_000361

3.4 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2470 1.9773 2.6381 4.2300e-
003

0.1027 0.1027 0.1020 0.1020 403.4129 403.4129 0.0588 404.8820 Total 0.2470 1.9773 2.6381 4.2300e-
003

0.1027 0.1027 0.1020 0.1020 403.4129 403.4129 0.0588 404.8820 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 6.3800e-
003

0.1938 0.0562 5.0000e-
004

0.0128 4.1000e-
004

0.0132 3.6900e-
003

3.9000e-
004

4.0800e-
003

53.4691 53.4691 3.4500e-
003

53.5554
Worker 0.0382 0.0261 0.2946 8.6000e-
004

0.0894 7.2000e-
004

0.0901 0.0237 6.7000e-
004

0.0244 85.7801 85.7801 2.5200e-
003

85.8432
Total 0.0445 0.2199 0.3508 1.3600e-
003

0.1022 1.1300e-
003

0.1034 0.0274 1.0600e-
003

0.0285 139.2492 139.2492 5.9700e-
003
139.3986
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:06 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter A-16
APPX_000362

3.4 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2470 1.9773 2.6381 4.2300e-
003

0.1027 0.1027 0.1020 0.1020 0.0000 403.4129 403.4129 0.0588 404.8820 Total 0.2470 1.9773 2.6381 4.2300e-
003

0.1027 0.1027 0.1020 0.1020 0.0000 403.4129 403.4129 0.0588 404.8820 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 6.3800e-
003

0.1938 0.0562 5.0000e-
004

0.0128 4.1000e-
004

0.0132 3.6900e-
003

3.9000e-
004

4.0800e-
003

53.4691 53.4691 3.4500e-
003

53.5554
Worker 0.0382 0.0261 0.2946 8.6000e-
004

0.0894 7.2000e-
004

0.0901 0.0237 6.7000e-
004

0.0244 85.7801 85.7801 2.5200e-
003

85.8432
Total 0.0445 0.2199 0.3508 1.3600e-
003

0.1022 1.1300e-
003

0.1034 0.0274 1.0600e-
003

0.0285 139.2492 139.2492 5.9700e-
003
139.3986
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:06 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter A-17
APPX_000363

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021

0.1682 1.6454 1.2095 3.0700e-
003

0.0279 0.0663 0.0941 7.4400e-
003

0.0617 0.0692 0.0000 268.7605 268.7605 0.0691 0.0000 270.4890 Maximum 0.1682 1.6454 1.2095 3.0700e-
003

0.0279 0.0663 0.0941 7.4400e-
003

0.0617 0.0692 0.0000 268.7605 268.7605 0.0691 0.0000 270.4890 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021

0.1682 1.6454 1.2095 3.0700e-
003

0.0277 0.0663 0.0939 7.4100e-
003

0.0617 0.0692 0.0000 268.7602 268.7602 0.0691 0.0000 270.4888 Maximum 0.1682 1.6454 1.2095 3.0700e-
003

0.0277 0.0663 0.0939 7.4100e-
003

0.0617 0.0692 0.0000 268.7602 268.7602 0.0691 0.0000 270.4888 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:03 AMWorld Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual World Oil Tanks Installation
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.23 0.40 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 1-4-2021 4-3-2021 0.8908 0.8908
2 4-4-2021 7-3-2021 0.5572 0.5572
3 7-4-2021 9-30-2021 0.2470 0.2470
Highest 0.8908 0.8908
A-18
APPX_000364

3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 3.5000e-
004

0.0000

3.5000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

0.0000 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0968 1.0842 0.7532 1.9000e-
003

0.0457 0.0457 0.0420 0.0420 0.0000 166.5775 166.5775 0.0539 0.0000 167.9244 Total 0.0968 1.0842 0.7532 1.9000e-
003

3.5000e-
004

0.0457 0.0460 4.0000e-
005

0.0420 0.0421 0.0000 166.5775 166.5775 0.0539 0.0000 167.9244 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling

2.1100e-
003

0.0642 0.0161 2.0000e-
004

4.7700e-
003

2.2000e-
004

5.0000e-
003

1.3100e-
003

2.1000e-
004

1.5300e-
003

0.0000 19.8280 19.8280 1.2600e-
003

0.0000 19.8596
Vendor 2.8000e-
004

8.9800e-
003

2.4300e-
003

2.0000e-
005

5.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

5.9000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.8000e-
004

0.0000 2.2431 2.2431 1.4000e-
004

0.0000 2.2466
Worker 3.1300e-
003

2.4400e-
003

0.0275 8.0000e-
005

7.9800e-
003

7.0000e-
005

8.0400e-
003

2.1200e-
003

6.0000e-
005

2.1800e-
003

0.0000 7.1993 7.1993 2.1000e-
004

0.0000 7.2046
Total 5.5200e-
003

0.0756 0.0460 3.0000e-
004

0.0133 3.1000e-
004

0.0136 3.6000e-
003

2.9000e-
004

3.8900e-
003

0.0000 29.2704 29.2704 1.6100e-
003

0.0000 29.3107
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:03 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual A-19
APPX_000365

3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.4000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0968 1.0842 0.7532 1.9000e-
003

0.0457 0.0457 0.0420 0.0420 0.0000 166.5773 166.5773 0.0539 0.0000 167.9242 Total 0.0968 1.0842 0.7532 1.9000e-
003

1.4000e-
004

0.0457 0.0458 2.0000e-
005

0.0420 0.0420 0.0000 166.5773 166.5773 0.0539 0.0000 167.9242 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling

2.1100e-
003

0.0642 0.0161 2.0000e-
004

4.7700e-
003

2.2000e-
004

5.0000e-
003

1.3100e-
003

2.1000e-
004

1.5300e-
003

0.0000 19.8280 19.8280 1.2600e-
003

0.0000 19.8596
Vendor 2.8000e-
004

8.9800e-
003

2.4300e-
003

2.0000e-
005

5.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

5.9000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.8000e-
004

0.0000 2.2431 2.2431 1.4000e-
004

0.0000 2.2466
Worker 3.1300e-
003

2.4400e-
003

0.0275 8.0000e-
005

7.9800e-
003

7.0000e-
005

8.0400e-
003

2.1200e-
003

6.0000e-
005

2.1800e-
003

0.0000 7.1993 7.1993 2.1000e-
004

0.0000 7.2046
Total 5.5200e-
003

0.0756 0.0460 3.0000e-
004

0.0133 3.1000e-
004

0.0136 3.6000e-
003

2.9000e-
004

3.8900e-
003

0.0000 29.2704 29.2704 1.6100e-
003

0.0000 29.3107
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:03 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual A-20
APPX_000366

3.3 Tank Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0572 0.4357 0.3287 6.3000e-
004

0.0189 0.0189 0.0181 0.0181 0.0000 51.2462 51.2462 0.0123 0.0000 51.5539 Total 0.0572 0.4357 0.3287 6.3000e-
004

0.0189 0.0189 0.0181 0.0181 0.0000 51.2462 51.2462 0.0123 0.0000 51.5539 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling

2.0000e-
004

6.6400e-
003

1.5500e-
003

2.0000e-
005

4.1000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

4.3000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.8295 1.8295 1.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.8327
Vendor 4.2000e-
004

0.0132 3.5900e-
003

3.0000e-
005

8.4000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

8.7000e-
004

2.4000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

2.7000e-
004

0.0000 3.3031 3.3031 2.0000e-
004

0.0000 3.3081
Worker 4.6100e-
003

3.5900e-
003

0.0405 1.2000e-
004

0.0118 1.0000e-
004

0.0118 3.1200e-
003

9.0000e-
005

3.2100e-
003

0.0000 10.6012 10.6012 3.1000e-
004

0.0000 10.6090
Total 5.2300e-
003

0.0235 0.0457 1.7000e-
004

0.0130 1.5000e-
004

0.0131 3.4700e-
003

1.4000e-
004

3.6100e-
003

0.0000 15.7338 15.7338 6.4000e-
004

0.0000 15.7498
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:03 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual A-21
APPX_000367

3.3 Tank Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0572 0.4357 0.3287 6.3000e-
004

0.0189 0.0189 0.0181 0.0181 0.0000 51.2461 51.2461 0.0123 0.0000 51.5538 Total 0.0572 0.4357 0.3287 6.3000e-
004

0.0189 0.0189 0.0181 0.0181 0.0000 51.2461 51.2461 0.0123 0.0000 51.5538 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling

2.0000e-
004

6.6400e-
003

1.5500e-
003

2.0000e-
005

4.1000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

4.3000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.8295 1.8295 1.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.8327
Vendor 4.2000e-
004

0.0132 3.5900e-
003

3.0000e-
005

8.4000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

8.7000e-
004

2.4000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

2.7000e-
004

0.0000 3.3031 3.3031 2.0000e-
004

0.0000 3.3081
Worker 4.6100e-
003

3.5900e-
003

0.0405 1.2000e-
004

0.0118 1.0000e-
004

0.0118 3.1200e-
003

9.0000e-
005

3.2100e-
003

0.0000 10.6012 10.6012 3.1000e-
004

0.0000 10.6090
Total 5.2300e-
003

0.0235 0.0457 1.7000e-
004

0.0130 1.5000e-
004

0.0131 3.4700e-
003

1.4000e-
004

3.6100e-
003

0.0000 15.7338 15.7338 6.4000e-
004

0.0000 15.7498
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:03 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual A-22
APPX_000368

3.4 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.9600e-
003

0.0237 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.2300e-
003

1.2300e-
003

1.2200e-
003

1.2200e-
003

0.0000 4.3916 4.3916 6.4000e-
004

0.0000 4.4076
Total 2.9600e-
003

0.0237 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.2300e-
003

1.2300e-
003

1.2200e-
003

1.2200e-
003

0.0000 4.3916 4.3916 6.4000e-
004

0.0000 4.4076
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 7.0000e-
005

2.3700e-
003

6.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

1.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

0.0000 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.5916 0.5916 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.5925
Worker 4.1000e-
004

3.2000e-
004

3.6300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0600e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.9494 0.9494 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.9501
Total 4.8000e-
004

2.6900e-
003

4.2700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.2000e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.2200e-
003

3.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.5410 1.5410 7.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.5426
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/22/2020 11:03 AM World Oil Tanks Installation - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual A-23
APPX_000369

3.4 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.9600e-
003

0.0237 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.2300e-
003

1.2300e-
003

1.2200e-
003

1.2200e-
003

0.0000 4.3916 4.3916 6.4000e-
004

0.0000 4.4076
Total 2.9600e-
003

0.0237 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.2300e-
003

1.2300e-
003

1.2200e-
003

1.2200e-
003

0.0000 4.3916 4.3916 6.4000e-
004

0.0000 4.4076
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 7.0000e-
005