Pittsburg City Council
December 16, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
potentially significant impacts would be adequately mitigated. 2 To the contrary, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the proposed Project may cause potentially significant, unmitigated impacts on public health and air quality, and from hazards and hazardous materials, which requires preparation of an environmental impact report (“EIR”). The Staff Report and responses to comments fail to resolve these issues.3

Given the ongoing deficiencies with the IS/MND as described below, SAFER CA respectfully requests that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing and direct City staff to prepare an EIR that fully discloses, analyzes, and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts before considering Project approval.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Applicant proposes to expand their existing industrial gas facility located at 2000 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg, California 94565 (APN No. 073-190-035).4 The expanded facility would increase current production of liquid nitrogen, oxygen, and argon to be distributed via truck to the Bay Area, Central Valley, and nearby states by installing a new air separation unit system.5 The proposed expansion includes construction and operation of a second centralized atmospheric separation plant, which would include air compressors, pre-purifier vessels, an industrial class chiller, a distillation tower containing heat exchangers, booster compressor/turbine sets, and cryogenic distillation columns, three individual storage tanks, interconnecting piping, and a cooling tower.6 The expansion would also require electric substation upgrades to distribute the large amount electricity needed to operate the facility.7

The entire plant is outdoors, and no buildings are proposed for the Project.8 Construction of the Project would occur over approximately 13 months, including

2 City of Pittsburg, Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project: Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (Oct. 2023) (hereinafter “IS/MND”), available at https://www.pittsburgca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/15486/638328001708630000 . 3 City of Pittsburg, Planning Commission Staff Report, Item: Consideration of a Resolution Granting a Use Permit, Design Review and Variance and Adoption of an Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Linde Inc., Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project, AP 23-0046 (UP, DR, VA) (Feb. 27, 2024) (hereinafter “Staff Report”). 4 IS/MND at p. 1.
5 Ibid.
6 Id. at p. 2.
7 Id. at p. 8.
8 Id. at p. 2.
266
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
site preparation, grading, onsite utilities, paving, and equipment installation.9 The Applicant is seeking approval of the IS/MND, a use permit, design review, and variance from the Planning Commission.10

We reviewed the IS/MND, available supporting documents, and responses to comments with the assistance of our technical expert, Phyllis Fox, Ph.D., P.E., whose comments are attached as Exhibit A.11 Based on our review, we conclude the document fails to comply with CEQA because the IS/MND does not provide an adequate discussion of the environmental setting, obscuring the analysis of environmental impacts. The IS/MND also fails to disclose, analyze, and mitigate all potentially significant adverse impacts to public health, air quality, hazards and hazardous materials that could result from construction and operation of the Project. There is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant, unmitigated impacts.

To correct these flaws, the City must prepare an EIR that fully discloses, analyzes, and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant impacts and considers alternatives to the Project.

II. STATEMENT OF INTEREST

SAFER CA advocates for safe processes at California’s industrial facilities to protect the health, safety, standard of life and economic interests of its members.

For this reason, SAFER CA has a strong interest in enforcing environmental laws, such as CEQA, which require the disclosure of potential environmental impacts of, and ensure safe operations and processes for, California’s industrial projects.

Failure to adequately address the environmental impacts of such projects poses a substantial threat to the environment, worker health, surrounding communities and the local economy.

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

9 Id. at p. 9.
10 Ibid.
11 Exhibit A, Phyllis Fox, Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project (Feb. 26, 2024) (hereinafter “Fox Comments”). 267
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
SAFER CA seeks to ensure a sustainable construction industry over the long- term by supporting projects that offer genuine economic and employment benefits while minimizing adverse environmental and other impacts on local communities.

SAFER CA and its members are concerned about projects like this one that risk serious environmental harm without providing countervailing economic benefits.

CEQA provides a balancing process whereby economic benefits are weighed against significant impacts to the environment.12 It is in this spirit we offer these comments.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

CEQA requires that lead agencies analyze any project with potentially significant environmental impacts in an EIR, except in limited circumstances.13 The purpose of an EIR “is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR protects not only the environment, but also informed self-government.”14

The presumption in favor of preparing an EIR, rather than a mitigated negative declaration, is reflected in the “fair argument” standard. Under that standard, the lead agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.15 The fair argument standard creates a “low threshold” of favoring environmental review through an EIR, rather than through a mitigated negative declaration.

“Substantial evidence” required to support a fair argument is defined as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.”16 “[I]n marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following principle: If there is

12 Pub. Resources Code § 21081(a)(3); Citizens for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 171.
13 Pub. Resources Code § 21000; 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002. 14 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 (internal citations omitted).
15 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21080(d), 21082.2(d); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(k)(3), 15064(f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 1501-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.Appl.4th 1597, 1601-02.
16 CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a).
268
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
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.”17

As detailed below, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may result in significant, unmitigated impacts to air quality, public health, and from hazards and hazardous materials. The City must prepare an EIR that analyzes, discloses, and mitigates these impacts and considers less environmentally damaging alternatives before the Project can be approved.

IV. THE IS/MND FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY

An initial study must include a description of the project’s environmental setting.18 The description of the environmental setting constitutes the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency may assess the significance of a project’s impacts.19 “The purpose of this requirement is to give the public and decision makers the most accurate and understandable picture practically possible of the project’s likely near-term and long-term impacts.”20

“[P]reparing a Negative Declaration necessarily involves some degree of forecasting. While foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can.”21 “If, after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact.”22 An agency is not allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data.23

The IS/MND provides a summary of annual monitoring data from 2019 to 2021.24 The data was obtained from a monitoring station located at 2975 Treat Boulevard, Concord, California, approximately 10 miles southwest of the Project

17 Id. § 15064(g).
18 Id. § 15063(d)(2).
19 Id. § 15125(a); see also Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 38 Cal. 4th 310, 320-21 (CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a) applies to an initial study).
20 CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a).
21 Id. § 15144 (emphasis added).
22 Id. § 15145 (emphasis added).
23 City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 408. 24 IS/MND at p. 17.
269
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
site.25 This station only measures levels of ozone, particulate matter less than 10 micrometers (“PM10”), particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (“PM2.5”), and nitrogen dioxide (“NO2”).26

As a threshold matter, the monitoring station in Concord is not representative of the ambient air quality conditions at the Project site. Data from this monitoring station suffers from similar flaws to the meteorological data utilized as part of the Project’s health risk assessment (“HRA”). The HRA relies on meteorological data from the Concord-Buchanan Field Airport monitoring station.27 As Dr. Fox explains, the airport monitoring station, which is also approximately 10 miles to the southwest of the Project site, has an entirely different wind pattern than monitoring stations which are in closer proximity to the Project site.28 In addition, the intervening terrain between Pittsburg and Concord creates significant discrepancies between the ambient air quality at Project site and the monitoring stations.

An accurate ambient air quality baseline is critical because air quality can affect the Project’s safe operation. The air separation facility will pull outdoor ambient air into the main compressor.29 Impurities and contaminants in the air other than nitrogen, oxygen, and argon are filtered out and returned to the air.30 Nitrogen, oxygen, and argon are then physically separated by operating three internal columns at different pressures and temperature and turned in liquid.31

Air contains many trace impurities that can cause plugging, corrosion, or which are reactive, leading to accidents.32 Many of these contaminants of concern are present at the Project site due to the proximity of the proposed facility to industrial facilities that emit pollutants.33 Yet the IS/MND fails to disclose the identities or quantities of any potential contaminants present in the ambient air that could potentially impact safe operation of the Project’s air separation facility.34

25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
27 Id., appen B. at p. 9.
28 Fox Comments at pp. 12-14.
29 Linde, Project Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project: Project Narrative ( Jan. 18, 2023) p. 3 (hereinafter “Project Narrative”).
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 Fox Comments at pp. 31-34.
33 Ibid.
34 IS/MND at p. 17.
270
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
This significant omission from the IS/MND prevents decisionmakers and the public from understanding the potential operational hazards associated with the proposed Project. The City must prepare an EIR which accurately discloses the ambient air quality to ensure all potential hazards are adequately disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated.

V. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT THE PROJECT’S

OPERATIONAL AIR QUALITY IMPACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT

The IS/MND concludes operational air quality impacts are less than significant.35 However, the IS/MND fails to analyze indirect air quality impacts from electricity usage. Substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project would result in significant air quality impacts when this emission source is considered. Moreover, mitigation measures are available to reduce these significant impacts which must be considered in an EIR.

A. The IS/MND Fails to Analyze Indirect Operational Emissions

The IS/MND concludes operational air quality impacts would be less than significant because criteria air pollutant (“CAP”) emissions from motor vehicles and other minor emission sources such as cleaning chemicals/solvents would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) significance thresholds for reactive organic compounds (“ROGs”), nitrogen oxides (“NOx”), PM10, and PM2.5.36 However, the IS/MND omits a key emission source of indirect emissions: electricity usage.37

The IS/MND discloses that the air separation process will consume significant amounts of electricity.38 Electricity used to support the Project will be supplied by Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”).39 As of 2021, 8.9% of power supplied by PG&E originated from natural gas.40 Gas-fired power plants emit significant amounts of greenhouse gasses (“GHGs”), criteria pollutants, and hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”).41

35 Id. at p. 22.
36 Ibid.
37 Fox Comments at pp. 6-9.
38 IS/MND at p. 8.
39 Ibid.
40 Id., appen. A, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 2021 Power Content Label (2021). 41 Fox Comments at pp. 6-7.
271
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
CEQA requires an analysis of indirect effects that are reasonably foreseeable and caused by the project but occur at a different time or place. CEQA Guidelines § 15064 states: “An indirect physical change in the environment is a physical change … which is not immediately related to the project, but which is caused indirectly by the project. If a direct physical change in the environment in turn causes another change in the environment, then the other change is an indirect change in the environment.” Indirect or secondary effects may include related effects on air.42

Here, the IS/MND fails to analyze whether CAP emissions associated with the Project’s electricity usage are significant. The air quality model used to estimate emissions does not include CAP emissions from electricity supplied to the Project.43 Nor are CAP emissions from electricity usage estimated in the IS/MND.44 This is a major omission in the City’s air quality analysis.

Indirect emissions from the Project’s electricity usage are reasonably foreseeable and quantifiable. This is demonstrated by the IS/MND’s detailed discussion of the Project’s GHG emissions generated by electricity usage. The IS/MND acknowledges that long-term operational GHG emissions would be generated by electricity consumption, mobile sources, and water/wastewater conveyance.45 It then estimates GHG emissions for electricity usage by multiplying the amount of CO2e per megawatt hour generated by the mix of PG&E-owned generation and power purchases by the Project’s annual electricity demand.46 The City could have, but did not, conduct a similar analysis for ROGs, NOx, PM10, or PM2.5.

CEQA requires the City to analyze whether the Project would result in violations of air quality standards and thresholds, including whether the Project would result in a net increase of non-attainment criteria pollutants.47 Because the IS/MND fails to analyze indirect operational CAP emissions, the City lacks substantial evidence to support the conclusion that operational air quality impacts are less than significant. The City must prepare an EIR that discloses, analyzes, and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant operational air quality impacts.

42 CEQA Guidelines § 15358(a)(2).
43 See generally IS/MND, appen A.
44 Id. at p. 22.
45 Id. at p. 52.
46 Ibid.
47 CEQA Appendix G, Section III(a)-(c).
272
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
B. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project’s Operational Emissions Are Significant

When air pollutant emissions from the Project’s electricity usage are calculated, the impact is significant.48 For example, NOx and ROG emissions from gas-fired sources supplying electricity to the Project would exceed the applicable significance thresholds.49

Dr. Fox estimates electricity usage emissions by using the power mix information contained in PG&E’s 2021 Power Content Label,50 which the IS/MND relies upon to estimate GHG emissions.51 Dr. Fox calculates that electricity usage during the first year of Project operation would generate approximately 219 pounds per hour for both NOx and ROGs.52 This far exceeds the BAAQMD threshold of 54 pounds per day for these pollutants.53

Moreover, even as the amount of natural gas decreases from PG&E’s portfolio, NOx and ROG emissions will remain significant.54 Dr. Fox estimates that electricity usage during the seventh year of operation would generate approximately 90 pounds per hour for both NOx and ROGs, assuming the amount of natural gas in PG&E’s portfolio decreases by a factor of 10.55 Again, this far exceeds the BAAQMD threshold of 54 pounds per day for these pollutants.

Dr. Fox also estimates electricity usage emission using PG&’E’s more recent 2022 Power Content Label.56 Dr. Fox concludes that electricity usage during the first year of Project operation would generate approximately 118 pounds per hour for both NOx and ROGs based on the updated power mix.57 Again, this far exceeds the BAAQMD threshold of 54 pounds per day for these pollutants.

48 Fox Comments at pp. 7-9.
49 Ibid.
50 Id. at pp. 8-9.
51 Ibid.
52 Ibid.
53 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines (Apr. 20, 2023) p. 3-4 (hereinafter “BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines”), available at https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines-2022/ceqa- guidelines-chapter-3-thresholds_final_v2-
pdf.pdf?rev=a976830cce0c4a6bb624b020f72d25b3&sc_lang=en. 54 Fox Comments at p. 9.
55 Ibid.
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid.
273
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
Dr. Fox’s comments constitute substantial evidence in support of a fair argument that the Project’s operational emissions are significant and unmitigated.

Therefore, the City must prepare an EIR that discloses, analyzes, and mitigates the Project’s significant NOx and ROG emissions.

C. Mitigation Measures Are Available to Reduce Significant NOx and ROG Emissions

Even though NOx and ROG emissions are primarily due to electricity generated by gas-fired power plants that are not owned by the Applicant, on-site or off-site mitigation at other sources can be used to reduce significant emissions from electricity usage.58 For example, Dr. Fox recommends adopting a voluntary emission reduction agreement (“VERA”).59 With a VERA, a project proponent provides pound-for-pound mitigation of air emission increases through a process that funds and implements emissions reduction projects administered through air district incentive programs.60 This approach has been found legally sufficient.61

The IS/MND could also impose mitigation requiring that the applicant enroll in renewable energy programs offered by PG&E which do not utilize natural gas resources. For example, while not currently active, PG&E previously offered customers the option to enroll in the Solar Choice program, allowing customers to elect to purchase solar energy to match either 50% or 100% of their energy use.62 If a customer is enrolled in the 100% Solar Choice program, then 0% of their electricity would be supplied by gas-fired power plants.63

The City must prepare an EIR which analyzes the feasibility of implementing these mitigation measures to reduce significant operational air quality impacts.

58 Id. at p. 10.
59 Ibid.
60 Ibid.
61 California Building Industry Assn. v. San Joaquin Valley APCD, Fresno County Case No. 06 CECG 02100 DS13; National Association of Home Builders v. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District; Federal District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:07-CV- 00820-LJO-DLB; and Center for Biological Diversity et al. v Kern County, Fifth Appellate District, Case No. F061908.
62 Pacific Gas & Electric, Community Renewable Programs, Solar Choice, https://www.pge.com/en/clean-energy/solar/community-renewable-programs.html (last visited Feb. 27, 2024).
63 IS/MND, appen. A, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 2021 Power Content Label (2021). 274
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
VI. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT HEALTH RISKS

FROM DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS ARE SIGNIFICANT

The IS/MND concludes the Project’s health risks are less than significant.64 The IS/MND basis its conclusion on a HRA which evaluates potential health risks associated with exposure of toxic air contaminants (“TACs”), including diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), generated during Project construction and operation.65

TACs are generally evaluated by separating them into carcinogens and noncarcinogens based on the nature of the physiological effects associated with exposure to the pollutant.66 Cancer risk is expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals, typically over a lifetime of exposure.67 Carcinogenic substances differ in that reference exposure levels (“RELs”) have been developed to determine the level of exposure below which no adverse health impacts is believed to occur.68 Acute and chronic exposure to noncarcinogens is expressed as a hazard index, which is the ratio of expected exposure levels to an acceptable REL.69

BAAQMD has established project-level thresholds to address the potential for an individual project to significantly elevate existing risks or hazards.70 A project will have a cumulatively considerable impact if it results in (1) an excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in a million or (2) a non-cancer hazard index greater than 1.0 (acute or chronic).71 Based on the results of the HRA, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to significant health risks.72

However, the HRA suffers from a fatal flaw by relying on meteorological data that is not representative of the Project site. As a result, the HRA severely underestimates health risk impact. Therefore, the City lacks substantial evidence to conclude health risk impacts are less than significant. When representative meteorological data is utilized, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that

64 IS/MND at p. 23.
65 IS/MND at p. 23; id., appen. B.
66 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines at p. 5-12, available at
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines-2022/ceqa- guidelines-chapter-5-project-air-quality-impacts_final- pdf.pdf?rev=de582fe349e545989239cbbc0d62c37a.
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid.
69 Ibid.
70 Id. at p. 5-14.
71 Ibid.
72 IS/MND at p. 24.
275
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
construction DPM emissions would expose nearby sensitive receptors and construction workers to significant, unmitigated health risks.

A. The IS/MND Lacks Substantial Evidence to Conclude Health Risks Are Less Than Significant Because It Relies on Clearly Erroneous Meteorological Data

Meteorology (e.g., prevailing wind direction) plays an important role in determining the downwind concentration and the location of the greatest affected receptor.73 Refined models use measured meteorological data collected from stations to simulate the transport and dispersion of air pollutants.74 The most appropriate meteorological station for a project matches the meteorological conditions (wind speeds and directions), terrain, and surrounding land use of the project.75

The HRA relies on metrological data from the Concord-Buchanan Field Airport monitoring station, which is approximately 10 miles away from the Project site.76 It explains that this station was “selected as being the most representative meteorology based on proximity.”77 This is wholly inaccurate.

BAAQMD maintains AEROMOD-ready meteorological data sets for 35 sites in the Bay Area.78 Three of these stations are closer to the Project site than the airport monitoring station.79 In fact, the closest monitoring station at Dow Chemical is in the City, approximately 1.1 miles from the Project site.80 Despite the availability meteorological data from multiple monitoring stations that are in closer proximity to the Project site, the HRA selected a monitoring station over 10 miles away with an entirely different wind pattern.81

73 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Guidelines Appendix E: Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards (2022) p. E-35 (hereinafter “BAAQMD HRA Guidelines”), available at https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines-2022/appendix-e-recommended-methods-for-screening-and-modeling- local-risks-and-hazards_final-pdf.pdf?rev=b8917a27345a4a629fc18fc8650951e4&sc_lang=en. 74 Id. at p. E-37.
75 Id. at p. E-38.
76 IS/MND, appen. B at p. 9.
77 Ibid.
78 BAAQMD HRA Guidelines at p. E-37; see also Bay Area Air Quality Management District, AERMOD-Ready Meteorological Data, https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california- environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools/ceqa-modeling-data (last updated Nov. 15, 2022). 79 Fox Comments at p. 12.
80 Ibid.
81 Id. at pp. 12-14.
276
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
BAAQMD recommends that HRAs note any differences or similarities in terrain elevation between the project and the metrological sites, especially if there are any barriers separating the two locations.82 But the HRA does not to explain the significant differences in terrain elevation or land uses between the Project site and the airport monitoring station, including an intervening mountain range.83 When there are significant differences in terrain elevation or land use between the project and the closest meteorological tower, BAAQMD recommends that the air dispersion model be run multiple times using meteorological data from all nearby stations.84 The HRA uses only one monitoring station, over 10 miles away from the Project site with entirely different meteorological conditions, terrain, and surrounding land uses, thus failing to provide accurate data or follow the feasible methodology recommended by BAAQMD.85

Substantial evidence means “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.”86 Substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts,87 but it does not include argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment.88

Because the HRA used meteorological data that is not representative of the Project site, the HRA severely underestimates the Project’s health risks.89 As a result, the IS/MND lacks substantial evidence to support its finding that the Project’s health risks are less than significant. The City must prepare an EIR that discloses, analyzes, and mitigates the Project’s significant health risks.

B. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that Cancer Risks from Construction DPM Emissions Are Significant

A revised HRA was developed using BAAQMD meteorological data from the Dow Chemical monitoring station, with all other assumptions remaining the same

82 BAAQMD HRA Guidelines at p. E-38.
83 Fox Comments at p. 12.
84 BAAQMD HRA Guidelines at p. E-38.
85 Fox Comments at p. 12-14.
86 CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a).
87 Id. § 15384(b).
88 Id. § 15384(a) (emphasis added).
89 Fox Comments at pp. 11-23.
277
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
as those in the HRA prepared for the IS/MND.90 Dr. Fox analyzed the impact of increased cancer risk on nearby receptors caused by exposure to DPM emissions during Project construction.91 Based on the results of the revised HRA, Dr. Fox concludes that the 2-year construction cancer risk exceeds BAAQMD’s threshold of 10 at several off-site locations, including:

• Diamond Hillside Apartments (20.2 cancers per million); • Edgewater Apartments (17.7 cancers per million);
• Martin Luther King Jr. Junior High School (11 cancers per million); and • Delta Oaks Presbyterian Church.92

Because the cancer risk is significant, Dr. Fox recommends implementation of Tier 4 Final construction equipment to mitigate construction DPM emissions.93

Dr. Fox’s comments constitute substantial evidence in support of a fair argument that the proposed Project would have a significant cancer risk impact. As a result, the City must prepare an EIR which discloses, analyzes, and mitigates the Project’s significant impact.

C. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that Chronic Hazard Risks from Construction DPM Emissions Are Significant

Dr. Fox analyzed the impact of increased chronic non-carcinogenic health impacts on nearby receptors caused by exposure to DPM emissions during Project construction.94 Based on the results of the revised HRA, Dr. Fox concludes that the chronic non-carcinogenic hazard impact exceeds BAAQMD’s threshold of 1.0 over a large area surrounding the Project site, including at nearby commercial areas which contain off-site workers.95 Because the chronic non-cancer risk is significant, Dr.

Fox recommends implementation of Tier 4 Final construction equipment to mitigate construction DPM emissions.96

Dr. Fox’s comments constitute substantial evidence in support of a fair argument that the proposed Project would have a significant chronic health risk impact. As a result, the City must prepare an EIR which discloses, analyzes, and mitigates the Project’s significant impact.

90 Id. at pp. 15-23.
91 Id. at pp. 15-18.
92 Id. at pp. 15-18.
93 Id. at p. 17.
94 Id. at p. 19.
95 Ibid.
96 Ibid.
278
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
D. The IS/MND Fails to Analyze Acute Hazard Risks from Construction DPM Emissions

An initial study must be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with the information needed to make an intelligent judgment concerning a project’s environmental impacts.97 An EIR should provide a reasonable, good faith disclosure and analysis of the project’s environmental impacts.98 An impact analysis may be based on informed judgments by experts.99

While the IS/MND discusses chronic non-carcinogenic hazard impacts, it does not discuss or analyze acute non-carcinogenic hazard impacts.100 In fact, the Staff Report admits that “acute DPM impacts were not evaluated in the Health Risk Assessment and IS/MND.”101 Diesel exhaust can have immediate (acute) health effects, including inflammation of the lungs.102 The IS/MND does not explain why acute hazard impacts of DPM emissions are not assessed, but the Staff Report argues that an acute analysis is not required because the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) does not have an acute REL for diesel exhaust.103 The lack of an acute REL published by OEHHA does not relieve City from its obligation to evaluate the Project’s impacts. 104 If evidence is submitted tending to show that the environmental impact may be significant despite a significance standard, the agency must address that evidence.105

OEHHA last evaluated the health impacts of DPM in 1998.106 Since that time, substantial additional research has been conducted on acute health impacts of DPM.107 Although the California agencies have not established an acute REL for

97 CEQA Guidelines § 15151; Napa Citizens for Honest Gov’t v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 356.
98 Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. 99 Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1233. 100 IS/MND at pp. 23-24; id., appen. B at p. 12-13.
101 Staff Report at p. 8.
102 Fox Comments at pp. 11-12, 20-23; see also Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and The American Lung Association of California, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust ( undated), available at https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf. 103 Staff Report at p. 13.
104 CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b)(2).
105 Protect the Historic Andor Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1111.
106 Fox Comments at pp. 20-23.
107 Id. at pp. 20-21.
279
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
diesel exhaust, other agencies have.108 For example, Health Canada has recommended an acute REL of 10 g/m3 for diesel exhaust to protect against adverse effects on the respiratory system.109

Health Canada is a Canadian federal department responsible for helping Canadians maintain and improve their health.110 Members of the department’s Fuel Assessment Section prepared a report on human health risk assessment for diesel exhaust detailing the justifications for establishing an acute REL for diesel exhaust.111 In setting an acute REL of 10 g/m3, the authors considered evidence from scientific studies evaluating the impacts of diesel emissions on human health.112

Reasonable estimates and assumptions may be used in an impact analysis.113 The Health Canada report provides substantial evidence to establish an acute REL for DPM impacts and supports a determination about the significance of non- carcinogenic acute hazards associated with construction DPM emissions. Because the IS/MND fails to analyze acute hazard risks from construction DPM emissions, the City lacks substantial evidence to conclude that health risk impacts are less than significant. The City must prepare an EIR that discloses, analyzes, and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant acute hazard impacts.

E. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that Acute Hazard Risks from Construction DPM Emissions Are Significant

Dr. Fox analyzed the impact of increased acute non-carcinogenic health impacts on nearby receptors caused by exposure to DPM emissions during Project construction.114 Based on the results of the revised HRA, Dr. Fox concludes that the acute non-carcinogenic hazard impact exceeds BAAQMD’s threshold of 1.0 over a large area surrounding the Project site, including nearby schools, residences and commercial areas, when compared to the acute REL recommended by the Canadian

108 Id. at p. 21.
109 Id. at p. 21; see also Health Canada, Human Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust (Mar. 2016) p. 11 (hereinafter “Health Canada Report”), available at https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/sc-hc/H129-60-2016-eng.pdf. 110 Health Canada Report at p. i; Government of Canada, About Health Canada, https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/about-health-canada.html (last modified Feb. 27, 2014).
111 Id. at pp. 5-11.
112 Id. at p. 11.
113 Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 392, 410. 114 Fox Comments at p. 20-21.
280
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
government.115 Because the acute hazard risk is significant, Dr. Fox recommends implementation of Tier 4 Final construction equipment to mitigate construction DPM emissions.116

Dr. Fox’s comments constitute substantial evidence in support of a fair argument that the proposed Project would have a significant acute health risk impact. As a result, the City must prepare an EIR which discloses, analyzes, and mitigates the Project’s significant impact.

F. The IS/MND Fails to Evaluate the Impacts of Construction DPM Emissions on Construction Workers

Construction workers have the greatest exposure to construction DPM emissions because they operate and maintain the equipment that emits these harmful pollutants.117 The IS/MND claims that BAAQMD does not consider on-site workers to be sensitive receptors because all employers must follow Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) regulations.118 The Staff Report reiterates this assertion.119 Neither the IS/MND, nor the Staff Report provide any citation in support of this assertion. In any event, BAAQMD does not state that on- site workers should not be classified as sensitive receptors. Outdated guidance states that BAAQMD’s methodology for screening and modeling local risks and hazards does not address on-site worker exposures based on the assumption that OSHA regulations ensure the health and well-being of the on-site workforce.120

However, OSHA does not regulate worker exposure to DPM.121 While OSHA has permissible exposure limits (“PELs”) for some components of diesel exhaust, it does not have a permissible exposure limit for diesel exhaust.122 Similarly,

115 Id. at p. 21.
116 Id. at p. 17.
117 Id. at p. 21.
118 IS/MND at p. 19.
119 Staff Report at p. 8.
120 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards (May 2011) p. 12, available at
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/baaqmd-modeling-approach.pdf. 121 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Diesel Exhaust, https://www.osha.gov/diesel- exhaust (last visited Feb. 26, 2024).
122 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Hazard Alert: Diesel Exhaust/Diesel Particulate Matter (Jan. 2013), available at https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA-3590.pdf; Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Diesel Exhaust, https://www.osha.gov/diesel- exhaust (last visited Jan. 10, 2024) (“OSHA has not established a standard for diesel exhaust as a unique hazard, however exposure to various components for diesel exhaust are addressed in specific OSHA standards for general industry”).
281
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
California’s Division of Occupational Health and Safety (“CalOSHA”) does not regulate worker exposure to DPM.123 While CalOSHA has PELs for some components of diesel exhaust, there is no PEL “either for diesel exhaust itself, or for the tiny particles that are probably the most important part of diesel exhaust.”124

In the absence of OSHA regulations, the California Department of Public Health’s Hazard Evaluation System and Information Service (“HESIS”) recommends that workplace exposure not exceed 20 µg/m3 of diesel exhaust particles.125 HESIS’s recommendation is based on the diesel exhaust risk assessment performed by OEHHA.126 It is also consistent with the recommendations made by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.127 HESIS’s recommendation constitutes substantial evidence to establish an acute REL for acceptable workplace exposure to diesel exhaust, and supports a determination about the significance of DPM emissions on construction workers.

Because the IS/MND fails to evaluate the impacts of construction DPM emissions on construction workers, the City lacks substantial evidence to conclude that the health risks are less than significant. The City must prepare an EIR which discloses, analyzes, and mitigates the Project’s significant health risks.

G. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that Acute Hazard Risks for Construction Workers from Construction DPM Emissions Are Significant

The revised HRA demonstrates that all on-site workers would be exposed to more than 50 µg/m3 of diesel exhaust particles during Project construction.128 Therefore, the acute non-carcinogenic hazard impacts to all on-site construction workers are at least 2.5,129 which exceed BAAQMD’s threshold of 1.0. Even if the BAAQMD threshold does not apply, as the Staff Report claims,130 the revised HRA

123 Hazard Evaluation System & Information Service, Diesel Engine Exhaust (Nov. 2002) p. 4 (hereinafter “HESIS Diesel Engine Exhaust”), available at https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/OHB/HESIS/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ diesel.pdf
124 Ibid.
125 Ibid.; see also California Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant (June 1998) appen. B, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/toxics/dieseltac/staffrpt.pdf. 126 HESIS Diesel Engine Exhaust at p. 4.
127 Ibid.
128 Fox Comments at pp. 20-23.
129 50 µg/m3 (acute exposure) divided by 20 µg/m3 (REL) = 2.5 hazard index. 130 Staff Report at p. 8.
282
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
demonstrates that all on-site workers would be exposed to acute concentrations of diesel exhaust particles in amounts that exceed the workplace exposure limit recommended by HESIS.131 Therefore, Dr. Fox’s comments constitute substantial evidence in support of a fair argument that the proposed Project would have a significant acute health risk impact to construction workers. As a result, the City must prepare an EIR which discloses, analyzes, and mitigates the Project’s significant impact.

VII. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT IMPACTS FROM

OPERATIONAL HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ARE SIGNIFICANT

The IS/MND concludes the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.132 The IS/MND also concludes that the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.133 However, the IS/MND provides only a conclusory discussion of potential hazard impacts and fails to disclose or analyze several operational hazards. As discussed below, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that operational hazards are significant, and mitigation measures are available to reduce these impacts.

A. The IS /MND Fails to Analyze Operational Hazards

Air separation plants present potential hazards to both on-site workers and off-site parties.134 These hazards include electricity, gasses under pressure, very low temperatures, the ability of oxygen to accelerate combustion, ambient air quality, the asphyxiant properties of nitrogen, argon and other rare gases, and the harmful effects of breathing high concentrations of oxygen.135 Dr. Fox details the risks and consequences posed by operation of air separation facilities.136

The IS/MND is silent with respect to these risks and the measures that will be implemented to protect on-site workers, nearby members of the public (including residents and students), and the environment.137 In fact, the IS/MND does not

131 HESIS Diesel Engine Exhaust at p. 4.
132 IS/MND at p. 57.
133 Ibid.
134 Fox Comments at pp. 23-37.
135 Id. at pp. 23-24.
136 Id. at pp. 24-25.
137 Id. at p. 26-29.
283
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
include a hazard and operations (“HAZOP”) analysis.138 A HAZOP is a formal structured process that ensures all aspects of a plant are addressed.139 The Asia Industrial Gases Association explains:

Air separation plant safety begins with a safety evaluation of the proposed plant site and the surrounding area. Generally, air separation plants are located in or near industrial areas as an adjunct to other industrial or chemical plants. A quantified risk assessment should be performed when plants are sited in proximity of hydrocarbon, corrosive, toxic, or other hazardous chemical sources. A plant i nstallation should conform to the applicable industry consensus standards and shall adhere to all applica ble local, state, provincial/territorial, and federal regulations. The plant operation should be reviewed for compatibility with the surrounding area. For example, the potential hazard of the cooling tower plume or cryogenic fog to nearby plants or vehicular traffic should be recognized. Adequate space should be provided for cryogenic liquid disposal.140

Because the IS/MND fails to disclose and analyze all operational hazards, the City lacks substantial evidence to conclude hazard impacts are less than significant.

The City must prepare an EIR which discloses, analyzes, and mitigates operational hazards impacts.

B. The IS /MND Fails to Analyze the Impact of Potential Air Contaminants on Safe Operation

As discussed in Section IV, an accurate air quality baseline is critical to the assessment of the Project’s operational impacts because the air separation facility will convert ambient air into liquefied oxygen, nitrogen, and argon. Because the IS/MND does not disclose the identity or quantity of contaminants in the air around the Project site, it also fails to analyze the impact of air quality on Project operations.141 The AIGA explains why an initial and ongoing assessment of ambient air quality is critical to safe operation of air separation facilities:

Air quality can have an impact on the air separation plant site selection and shall be evaluated. The air separation plant typically is located in an

138 Id. at p. 27.
139 Id. at p. 27-28.
140 Asia Industrial Gases Association, Safe Practices Guide for Cryogenic Air Separation Plants (2013) p. 10 (hereinafter “AIGA Safe Practices Guide”), available at https://www.asiaiga.org/uploaded_docs/en_AIGA_056_23_Safe_Practice_Guide_for_Cryogenic_Air_Se paration_Plants_Clean_Copy_10_Aug_2023.pdf.
141 Fox Comments at pp. 31-34.
284
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
industrial area and thus a degree of contamination released from industrial and/or chemical plant operations can be expected to be present in the air. Trace contaminants in the atmospheric air, particularly hydrocarbons, have a direct bearing on the safe operation of an air separation plant. It is important to identify these contaminants and their levels of concentration in the atmospheric air. Short -term air quality analyses are not representative of long-term air contaminant levels. Changing site conditions can have an impact on air quality and should be evaluated periodically or when the surrounding industries change.142

Given that the proposed Project would operate in an industrial area, air contaminants can reasonably be expected in the air intake.143 Trace contaminants in the air intake can cause problems in air separation units, including plugging, undesired reactions, or corrosion.144 Yet, as discussed above, the IS/MND is silent with respect to the composition of the ambient air that would be processed in the facility and whether the facility is designed to remove all potential contaminants from the processed air.145

Because the IS/MND fails to evaluate the existing ambient air quality and its potential adverse impacts on operation of the Project, the City lacks substantial evidence to conclude that impacts are less than significant. The City must prepare an EIR that discloses, analyzes, and mitigates potentially significant hazard impacts.

C. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that Ambient Air Contaminants Could Affect Safe Operation

The IS/MND states that accidental release would be rare, and products of the air separation process do not pose a significant hazard to the public.146 However, as discussed in Section IV, trace contaminants in the ambient air around the Project site could result in undesirable consequences.147 In fact, Dr. Fox identified several catastrophic explosions that occurred at air separation plants in recent years.148 For example, an explosion which injured 12 people at an air separation plant in Malaysia was determined to have been caused by hydrocarbons infiltrating past the

142 AIGA Safe Practices Guide at p. 13.
143 Fox Comments at pp. 32-33; see also AIGA Safe Practices Guide at p. 13-14. 144 Fox Comments at pp. 31, 33.
145 Id. at pp. 31-33.
146 IS/MND at p. 57.
147 Fox Comments at pp. 31-34.
148 IS/MND at p. 57.
285
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
air purification system.149 The hydrocarbon release stemmed from nearby forest fires.150 The proposed Project could be subject to similar hazards given the recent number of wildfires which have recently occurred in the area.151

The IS/MND fails to discuss or analyze the potentially significant impacts to workers, nearby residents, members of the public, and the environment should an accident occur. The City must prepare an EIR which discloses, analyzes, and mitigates impacts from potential air contaminants.

D. Feasible Mitigation Measures Are Available to Reduce the Risk of Accidents

Dr. Fox recommends that the proposed Project be designed and operated in a manner that minimizes the risk of accidents.152 Dr. Fox identifies several important safety features which are not mentioned, let alone evaluated, in the IS/MND:

• Analysis of CO2 at the PPU exit to verify proper operation; • Measure LOX purge >/= 0.2% of the air to ensure no contaminant buildup in the reboiler sump;
• Analysis of hydrocarbons to assure < 450 ppm as C1 equivalent to ensure no hydrocarbon building in reboiler sump;
• Batch analysis to verify that each component is present at acceptable level;
• Periodic defrost to remove trace components from low flow areas; and • Downflow reboiler exist CO2 concentration < 6% solubility to ensure CO2 and N2O do not accumulate at too high of a rate.153
Dr. Fox also recommends several protective measures for on-site workers during Project operation to reduce impacts caused by accidents.154 The City must prepare an EIR that analyzes the feasibility of the recommended mitigation measures to reduce significant hazard impacts.

149 Fox Comments at pp. 29-30.
150 Id. at p. 29.
151 Id. at pp. 30-33.
152 Fox Comments at p. 35.
153 Ibid.
154 Ibid.
286
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
E. The IS/MND Fails to Analyze the Hazards Impacts from Loading and Transportation of Liquified Products

The IS/MND concludes that the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials because the end-products of the separation process are transported offsite in a stable state by specially designed trucks that operate in accordance with Federal and State regulations.155 The IS/MND claims that an accidental release during transportation would be rare, but if one did occur, it would be managed locally and contained at the site by emergency response teams.156 This conclusory discussion is inadequate because it fails to disclose and analyze potential impacts with loading or unloading the transport vehicles or from accidents that occur enroute.

As Dr. Fox explains, accidents have occurred during the filling and transport of gases.157 For example, in 2019, a major uncontrolled release of high-pressure hydrogen occurred during the fill of a trailer.158 In response, the transporter was required to implement improved training and retraining of drivers, improved trailer filling procedures, and equipment evaluations and modifications.159 The IS/MND fails to demonstrate, based upon substantial evidence, how compliance with existing regulations reduce impacts to less than significant.

Because the IS/MND fails to evaluate the hazards associated with loading, unloading, and transportation of liquefied oxygen, nitrogen, and argon, the City lacks substantial evidence to conclude hazard impacts are less than significant.

The City must prepare an EIR which discloses, analyzes, and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant hazard impacts.

VIII. THE PLANNING COMMISSION CANNOT MAKE THE REQUIRED USE PERMIT

FINDINGS

A use permit may be granted only if the Planning Commission can make findings that the proposed use:

• Is in accord with the objective of this title, the purposes of the land use district in which it is located and is appropriate to the specific location;

155 IS/MND at p. 57.
156 Ibid.
157 Fox Comments at p. 35-37.
158 Id. at p. 36.
159 Id. at p. 36-37.
287
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
• Is not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the city; • Will not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the city;
• Will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base and other substantial revenues within the city; • Is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan and applicable specific plan; • Will not create a nuisance or enforcement problem within the neighborhood;
• Will not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood; • Will not create a demand for public services within the city beyond that of the ability of the city to meet in the light of taxation and spending restrains imposed by law;
• Is consistent with the city’s approved funding priorities; and • If located in a commercial (CP) district, will support the goals of creating a vibrant, economically prosperous, visually interesting, and engaging pedestrian oriented atmosphere along the primary downtown corridor.160

As discussed in Sections V-VII, Dr. Fox identified several significant air quality and hazards impacts. If left unmitigated, the proposed Project would be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of workers, residents, and students. In sum, the construction of the Project would pose a significant cancer and hazard risk due to DPM emissions.161 Operation of the Project would pose significant hazards, including the potential for catastrophic accidents.162 Until these significant impacts are mitigated, the Planning Commission cannot find that the proposed Project is not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the city. Therefore, the Planning Commission should continue the public hearing and direct City staff to prepare an EIR that discloses, analyzes, and mitigates the Project’s significant impacts.

IX. CONCLUSION

There is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant, unmitigated impacts to public health and air quality, and from hazards and hazardous materials. The Planning Commission should continue the public hearing and direct City staff to prepare an EIR that discloses, analyzes, and mitigates the Project’s significant environmental impacts.

160 Pittsburg Municipal Code § 18.16.040.
161 Fox Comments at pp. 11-23.
162 Id. at pp. 23-37.
288
February 27, 2024

6886-008j

printed on recycled paper
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

Andrew J. Graf

AJG:ljl
289

EXHIBIT A
290

Comments

on the

Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration

for the

Oakstone Northern California
Expansion Project

Pittsburg, California

February 26, 2024

By

Phyllis Fox, PhD, PE

291
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INCOMPLETE ............................................................... 5

3. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 5

3.1. Operational Emissions Are Underestimated and Significant ............................... 6

3.1.1. Emissions from Supplying Energy ...................................................................... 6

3.1.2. Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Supplying Energy ...................................... 7

3.2. Mitigation for Significant Operational NOx Emissions....................................... 10

4. CONSTRUCTION HEALTH RISKS ARE SIGNIFICANT ....................................... 11

4.1. The HRAs Used the Wrong Meteorological Data ................................................ 12

4.2. Construction DPM Emissions ................................................................................. 15

4.3. Revised Construction Cancer Health Risks Are Significant ............................... 15

4.4. Revised Construction Chronic Health Impacts .................................................... 19

4.5. Construction Acute Health Impacts Are Significant ........................................... 20

4.5.1. Construction and Operational Workers ........................................................... 23

4.5.2. Public Receptors ................................................................................................... 23

5. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................ 23

5.1. Operational Hazards Were Not Evaluated ........................................................... 26

5.1.1. Accidents at Existing Facilities ........................................................................... 29

5.1.2. Ambient Air Quality ............................................................................................ 31

5.2. Mitigation ................................................................................................................... 35

6. LOADING/TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS ............................................................ 35

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Estimated Project Operational Emissions (lb/day) .................................................. 6 Table 2: Trace Contaminants in Air ......................................................................................... 31 Table 3: Plugging, Reactive, and Corrosive Contaminants in Air ...................................... 32

292
ii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Existing Linde Facility in Pittsburg Showing Location (gold box) of the Proposed Expansion ........................................................................................................ 1 Figure 2: Schematic of Proposed Air Separation Process ....................................................... 3 Figure 3: Wind Rose for Concord Buchanan Field Used in the IS/MND’s HRA ............ 13 Figure 4: Wind Rose for Pittsburg (Dow Chemical) ............................................................. 14 Figure 5: Construction 2-Year Cancer Risk Based on Construction DPM Emissions ......................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 6: Edgewater Apartments (2105 Carion Ct.) .............................................................. 17 Figure 7: Diamond Hillside Apartments (2205 East Leland Road) .................................... 18 Figure 8: Martin Luther King Jr. Junior High School ............................................................ 18 Figure 9: Chronic (8-Hr) DPM Construction Health Impacts (µg/m3) .............................. 19 Figure 10: Acute DPM Construction Health Impacts (µg/m3)............................................ 22 Figure 11: Air Separation Plant Accident in Yima City, Central China, July 7, 2019 ....... 30

293
1 1. INTRODUCTION
The Applicant, Linde, Inc, is proposing to expand their existing air separation plant in Pittsburg, California on a 31.55-acre parcel at 2000 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg, CA. RCH Group, Inc. has prepared a draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Project.1 The expanded facility will encompass 2.1 acres of Linde’s existing 31-acre land on Loveridge Road.2 Figure 1.

Figure 1: Existing Linde Facility in Pittsburg Showing Location (gold box) of the Proposed Expansion3

The Project will increase the production of liquid nitrogen, oxygen, and argon.

The products will be stored in three large storage tanks, transferred into bulk trains when needed, and then delivered into smaller tanks at customer locations. The liquid products would be distributed via truck to the Bay Area, the Central Valley, and into nearby states.4

1 RCJ Group, Inc., Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project, Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, October 2023;
https://www.pittsburgca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/15486/638328001708630000. 2 IS/MND, pdf 321.
3 IS/MND, pdf 321.
4 IS/MND, pdf 318.
294
2 The air separation process uses large amounts of electricity to separate air into nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%), and argon (1%) by cooling them down to cryogenic temperatures where they change from gas to liquid. No combustion, chemical reactions, additional ingredients, or added materials are needed to separate the gases into their pure elemental form.5 Linde will expand the current substation with PG&E oversight.6
The proposed expansion (Project) includes the construction and operation of a second centralized atmospheric air separation plant adjacent to Linde’s existing facility to produce liquid nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. The air separation plant will include the following:7
• Two main air compressors
• Two prepurifier vessels to remove moisture, carbon dioxide, and other gases in air and return them back to the atmosphere
• An industrial-class chiller to pre-cool the air
• Three individual sets of storage tanks for the three products • Interconnecting piping and instrumentation and valving • An electric substation to distribute large amounts of electricity to operate the facility
• A cooling tower, associated piping, and heat exchangers to remove the heat from the compressors.

The proposed air separation process is shown in Figure 2.

5 IS/MND, pdf 319.
6 IS/MND, pdf 322.
7 IS/MND, pdf 319.
295
3 Figure 2: Schematic of Proposed Air Separation Process8

Air is compressed in the main air compressor to 80-90 psig and “[a]ll the impurities and contaminants of air other than nitrogen, oxygen, and argon are filtered out and returned to the air.”9 The purified air is then cooled to -285 F and sent into the air separation tower where nitrogen, oxygen, and argon are physically separated by operating three internal columns at different pressures and temperatures. Gaseous nitrogen is sent to a large air conditioning unit (liquefier) to liquefy it. The liquid nitrogen is then used to liquefy the separated oxygen and argon. These three products leave the tower and are stored in individual cryogenic storage tanks. Products are then transferred into bulk trucks for delivery to customers.10 My review of the IS/MND and supporting documents indicates that the Project description is incomplete and inadequate to evaluate impacts. It omits information that is required to analyze impacts, fails to analyze impacts that are potentially significant, and underestimates other impacts that are highly significant. Further, my analysis of the IS/MND and supporting documents indicates that the Project will result in significant impacts that were not identified in the IS/MND, including the following:
• Operational emissions of NOx and ROG from supplying energy to the Project are significant and unmitigated;
• The health risk assessment (HRA) is based on meteorological data 10 miles southwest of the Project site that is not representative of conditions at the

8 IS/MND, pdf 320.
9 IS/MND, pdf 320.
10 IS/MND, pdf 320.
296
4 Project site, thus substantially underestimating health impacts of Project construction and operation;
• Construction cancer health risks are significant over a large area surrounding the Project site, including at the Edgewater Apartments, Diamond Hillside Apartments, Martin Luther King Jr. Junior High School, Delta Oaks Presbyterian Church, many residential areas, and many off-site nearby businesses.
• The IS/MND did not conduct an acute health risk assessment. • Construction acute health risks are significant for construction workers and off- site workers, residents, and students over a large area surrounding the Project site, including at the Edgewater Apartments, Diamond Hillside Apartments, Martin Luther King Jr. Junior High School, Delta Oaks Presbyterian Church, many residential areas, and many off-site nearby businesses. • Construction chronic health risks are significant for construction workers and workers and residents at many off-site residential and commercial areas. • The IS/MND failed to evaluate hazards associated with the production and transport of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon.
• The IS/MND does not include a Hazard and Operability Analysis (HAZOP) or Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) to evaluate the impact of accidents to on- site workers and off-site parties, which are typically significant for air separation plants.
• The IS/MND fails to disclose the impact of local air quality on facility operation, which can cause operational problems, including plugging, undesired chemical reactions, or corrosion, which can lead to accidents, affecting on-site workers and off-site parties.
• The IS/MND fails to require ambient air quality monitoring for contaminants in the air during operation that could affect facility operation.

The many omissions from the Project description identified in these comments render this IS/MND inadequate under CEQA. Further, the potentially significant impacts due to accidents indicate that the IS/MND should be withdrawn and replaced by an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that addresses my comments.

My resume is included in Exhibit 1 to these Comments. I have over 50 years of experience in the field of environmental engineering, including air emissions and air pollution control; greenhouse gas (GHG) emission inventory and control; water quality and water supply investigations; hazardous waste investigations; hazard investigations; risk of upset modeling; environmental permitting; nuisance investigations (odor, noise); 297
5 health risk assessments; EIRs; and litigation support. I have reviewed and commented on hundreds of CEQA documents and air permit applications, including for tank farms, refineries, solar and wind facilities, geothermal facilities, ethanol plants, oil and gas production, quarries, terminals, ports, battery energy storage systems, and many other industrial facilities. I have MS and PhD degrees in environmental engineering from the University of California at Berkeley. I am a licensed professional engineer (chemical) in California. My work has been cited in two published CEQA opinions: (1) Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee, City of San Leandro, and City of Alameda et al. v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 598 and Communities for a Better Environment v.

South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310 and has supported the record in many other CEQA cases.

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INCOMPLETE
The impacts of an air separation plant depend on the design of the facility. The IS/MND does not include adequate design information to evaluate impacts. The IS/MND includes a site plan,11 3D elevation,12 and noise contour map.13 However, it omits important information and analyses including:
• Comprehensive analysis of local ambient air quality that identifies contaminants in ambient air that may impact operation of the facility; • Impact of emissions from the facility on local ambient air quality; • Hazards of air separation plants to on-site workers, including electricity, gases under pressure, very low temperatures, the ability of oxygen to accelerate combustion, and the asphyxiant properties of nitrogen, argon, and the rare gases;
• Impacts of liquid spills;
• Impacts of loading and transporting produced gases to market; • Worker safety training.

3. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
The IS/MND discloses that “[t]he air separation process is the most electricity intensive process known to man . . . . We consume 25 times the amount of electricity of a normal industrial customer and are often one of the Top 20 customers of the

11 IS/MND, Figure 3, pdf 10.
12 IS/MND, Figure 4, pdf 11.
13 IS/MND, Figure 6, pdf 80.
298
6 associated electricity utility.”14 The electricity used to support the Project will be supplied by the California grid, which includes gas-fired power plants. These emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases, criteria pollutants, and HAPs. The IS/MND estimated GHG emissions from supplying electricity but failed to estimate criteria pollutants or HAPs. I estimate NOx and ROG emissions in this comment.

3.1. Operational Emissions Are Underestimated and Significant The IS/MND estimated operational emissions as summarized in Table 1. These emissions are average daily and annual operational emissions from mobile sources.15 There is no evidence in the IS/MND that they include emissions from supplying electricity to the Project, which must be separately calculated and added to mobile source emissions.

Table 1: Estimated Project Operational Emissions (lb/day)16

3.1.1. Emissions from Supplying Energy
The IS/MND
discloses that “[t]he air separation process is the most electricity intensive process known to man . . . We consume 25 times the amount of electricity of a normal industrial customer and are often one of the Top 20 customers of the associated electric utility.”17 Emissions from supplying this electricity to the Project were not included in the IS/MND’s estimate of Project operational emissions. They are estimated in this comment.

The Project is estimated to require an added peak electricity demand at full buildout of 12.3 MW (by 2032) and would consume approximately 107,748 MWh per

14 IS/MND, pdf 321.
15 IS/MND, pdf 98.
16 IS/MND, Table 5, pdf 26. See also CalEEMod output, Section 2.4, pdf 167. 17 IS/MND, pdf 321. See also pdf 12 (“Air separation facilities consume 25 times the amount of a normal industrial customer and are often one of the Top 20 customers of the associated electric utility.”) 299
7 year.18 Electricity is generated in California using a mixture of sources, including gas- fired power plants, nuclear, solar, and wind. Gas-fired power plants are currently the dominant source of electricity. Gas-fired plants emit criteria pollutants [NO2, SO2, VOCs, CO, PM10, PM2.5, greenhouse gases (GHGs), and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)].

Most of this electricity is currently supplied by gas-fired power plants. The emissions from supplying this electricity will decrease over the duration of the Project as California electricity is subject to SB100 and California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), which require increasing renewable energy to 60% by 2030 and to 100% by 2045.19
Renewable energy sources (e.g., wind, solar) do not emit criteria pollutants and HAPs. Thus, criteria pollutant and HAP emissions from the generation of energy to support the Project will decline over time until gas-fired sources in the Project’s electricity supply are eliminated.20 However, in the near term, the generation of electricity to support the Project will predominantly come from gas-fired sources that emit criteria pollutants and HAP emissions. The IS/MND did not estimate criteria pollutants and HAP emissions from supplying energy to the Project before it is fully decarbonized, which will not occur over the lifetime of the Project. Thus, the IS/MND fails as an informational document under CEQA. These omitted emissions are estimated in this comment.

3.1.2. Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Supplying Energy The CalEEMod model used to estimate Project emissions does not include criteria pollutant emissions from supplying electricity to the Project . They were not
otherwise estimated in the IS/MND. This comment estimates the NOx and ROG emissions from supplying energy to the Project.

The IS/MND estimated GHG emissions from generating the energy required to support the Project21 but did not estimate criteria pollutants or HAPs from supplying this energy, thus failing as an informational document under CEQA. I estimate NOx and ROG emissions from supplying Project energy in this comment, which demonstrates that they are significant. The Applicant should estimate other criteria

18 IS/MND, pdf 40-41.
19 IS/MND, pdf 38-39.
20 IS/MND, pdf 40-41.
21 IS/MND, Table 8, pdf 26.
300
8 pollutants (PM2.5, PM10, SO2) and HAPs from supplying energy to support this Project and the resulting revised CEQA document should be recirculated.

The Project will use 26,280,000 kWh/yr (26,280 MWh/yr) of electricity in 2025 to 107,748,000 kWh (107,748 MWh/yr) in 2032.22 The IS/MND did not estimate criteria pollutants from generating this energy, thus failing as an informational document under CEQA. However, it did estimate GHG emissions from generating electricity in 2025 to 2030 using PG&E’s 2021 Power Content Label.23,24 Under the PG&E base plan,

8.9% natural gas would be included in the power supply.25 All other sources of electricity under PG&E’s base plan would not generate GHGs (and presumably, criteria pollutants).

The GHG emissions from using natural gas to generate electricity in 2025 are reported as 1,168 metric tons in 2025 based on 56 pounds of CO2e per MWh, which I verified through calculations in this footnote.26 The estimated 1,168 MT/yr of GHG emissions, supra, agrees with the IS/MND.27
Thus, following this same calculation procedure, and conservatively assuming average NOx and ROG concentrations in emissions from gas-fired power plants contributing electricity to the Project in 2025 are 2 ppm,28 emissions in lb/MMBTU are estimated from:

Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined. 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 ∗ 10−6 ∗
1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑙𝑙𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑣𝑣
𝑚𝑚𝑙𝑙𝑀𝑀𝑚𝑚𝑣𝑣 ∗ 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊ℎ𝑡𝑡 ∗ 𝐹𝐹𝑑𝑑 ∗

20.9%

20.9%−%𝑂𝑂2

Using this equation,
the NOx and ROG emissions from supplying power to the
Project in 2025 are 0.00244 lb/MMBtu.29 The Project will require 26,280 MWh of

22 IS/MND, Table 2, pdf 12.
23 IS/MND, Table 8, footnote 2, pdf 56.
24 PG&E, 2021 Power Content Label; https://www.pge.com/content/dam/pge/docs/account/billing- and-assistance/bill-inserts/1022-Power-Content-Label.pdf. 25 Ibid.
26 2025 GHG Emissions (IS/MND, Table 8) = [(98 lb CO2e/MWh)(26,280 MWh)/2000 lb/ton][0.907185 Mt/ton] = 1,168.2 MT/yr.
27 IS/MND, Table 8, pdf 56.
28 CARB, Gas-Fired Power Plant NOx Emission Control and Related Environmental Impacts, May 2004; https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/gas files/classic/research/apr/reports/l2069.pdf. See pdf 31. 29 NOx and ROG emission factor in lb/MMBtu =(concentration in ppm)(10-6 )(1/molar volume)(molar weight)(Fd)(20.9%)/(20.9%-%O2) = (2 ppm)(10-6)(1/molar volume)(molar weight)(Fd)(20.9%/(20.9%/(20.9%-3%)) = (2 ppm)(10-6)(1/379.7 dscf/lb-mol)(46.01 g/mol)(8608 dscf/MMBtu)(20.9%/(20.9%-3%)) = 0.00244 lb/MMBtu.
301
9 electricity in 2025,30 which is equivalent to 89,667 MMBtu/hr in 2025 and 107,748 MWh or 367,636 MMBtu/hr in 2032.31 Thus, NOx and ROG emissions from supplying power to the Project in 2025 will be (0.00244 lb/MMBtu)(89,667 MMBtu/hr) = 219 lb/hr.

Assuming NOx and ROG emissions from supplying electricity to the Project in future years beyond 2025, which will include significantly more wind and solar with zero NOx and ROG emissions, NOx and ROG emissions will decline to 0.2 ppm by 2032 or by a factor of 10 from reducing GHG emissions by replacing gas-fired sources with solar and wind. As 367,636 MMBtu of electricity will be required in 2032, NOx and ROG emissions from supplying power to the project in 2032 will be (0.00244 lb/MMBtu)(0.2/2)(367,636 MMBtu) = 90 lb/hr.

The BAAQMD NOx and ROG significance thresholds are 54 lb/day.32 Thus, NOx and ROG emissions from supplying electricity to the Project exceed the BAAQMD operational significance thresholds of 54 lb/day and are significant impacts of the Project that were not disclosed in the IS/MND. Therefore, mitigation is required for operational Project NOx and ROG emissions based on the cited 2021 Power Content Label.

The PG&E 2022 Power Content Label33 shows that natural gas is projected to supply 4.8% of the electricity. Thus, based on this updated information, NOx and ROG emissions from supplying power to the Project in 2022 will be (219 lb/hr)(4.8%/8.9%) = 118 lb/hr, which exceeds the significance threshold of 54 lb/day. Thus, ROG emissions are significant in 2022 when natural gas emissions from supplying electricity are included. Using the PG&E 2022 Power Content Label, total NOx emissions also equal 118 lb/hr, which exceeds the significance threshold of 54 lb/day and is thus a significant impact of Project operation.

The Applicant should perform similar calculations for all criteria pollutants and a responsive CEQA document circulated for review. See Comment 3.2 for NOx mitigation.

30 IS/MND, Table 2, pdf 12.
31 IS/MND, Table 2, pdf 12: Assuming 1 MWh = 3.412e+6 Btu/hr, the energy required to operate the facility in MMBtu: 2025: (26,280 MWh)(3.412 MMBtu/MWh) = 89,667.4 MMBtu/hr; 2032: (107,748 MWh)(3.412 MMBtu/MWh) = 367,636 MMBtu/hr.
32 IS/MND, Table 5, pdf 26; BAAQMD, 3. Thresholds of Significance, Table 3-1, pdf 4; https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines-2022/ceqa- guidelines-chapter-3-thresholds_final_v2-pdf.pdf?rev=a976830cce0c4a6bb624b020f72d25b3&sc_lang=en. 33 https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/6048.

302
10 3.2. Mitigation for Significant Operational NOx Emissions The significant NOx emissions are primarily due to emissions from generating electricity at gas-fired power plants at distant locations that are not owned by the Applicant. As the Applicant has no jurisdiction over these facilities, source control is not feasible. However, on-site or off-site mitigation at other sources can be used to reduce significant NOx and ROG emissions from supplying Project energy.

A Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement, or VERA, is a mitigation measure under CEQA by which a project proponent provides pound-for-pound mitigation of air emission increases through a process that funds and implements emission reduction projects administered through an air district’s incentive grant programs. A VERA can be implemented to address air quality impacts under CEQA, from both construction and operational phases of a project.34
VERAs have been identified as mitigation measures within other CEQA documents.35 A VERA would require the Applicant to make a one-time payment for its significant unmitigated emissions in excess of significance thresholds to the BAAQMD, which would then use the payment to develop off-site mitigation. Types of projects that have been funded include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines and replacing old heavy-duty trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient heavy-duty trucks.

The SJVAPCD, for example, has repeatedly concluded that a VERA “is a feasible mitigation measure under CEQA, effectively achieving emission reductions necessary to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.”36
This approach has been found legally sufficient by court rulings in the following cases: California Building Industry Assn. v. San Joaquin Valley APCD, Fresno County Case No. 06 CECG 02100 DS13; National Association of Home Builders v. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District; Federal District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:07-CV-00820-LJO-DLB; and Center for Biological Diversity et al. v Kern County, Fifth Appellate District, Case No. F061908.

34 SJVAPCD, Appendix D, Public Resource; Existing Control of Air Pollution Sources of Concern, Stockton CERP, pdf 12-13; https://community.valleyair.org/media/2411/appendix-d-public-resource- existing-control-of-air-pollution-sources-of-concern-030621.pdf. 35 SJVAPCD, Summary of Comments and Responses to Proposed Revisions to the GAMAQI-2012, May 31, 2012, p. 3; https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQIDRAFT-2012/GAMAQIResponseto Comments5-10-12%20.pdf.
36 SJVAPCD 2017, pp. 5, 9.
303
11 4. CONSTRUCTION HEALTH RISKS ARE SIGNIFICANT
The Project will emit toxic air contaminants (TACs)37 during Project construction and operation. Risk assessments are conducted to determine acute, chronic, and cancer health risks to sensitive receptors from TAC emissions. Chronic health impacts occur from continuous exposures for up to a lifetime.38 Acute health impacts are those that occur from short-term, typically 1-hour exposures.

Sensitive receptors include construction workers, on-site operational workers, and off-site workers and residents. The IS/MND conducted cancer and chronic health risk assessments (HRAs) for Project construction and operation and concluded that construction and operational health impacts were not significant.39 These risk assessments significantly underestimate cancer and chronic health risks for several reasons discussed in these comments. The IS/MND did not estimate acute health impacts, failing as informational document under CEQA. When the errors and omissions in the IS/MND’s HRAs are corrected, cancer, chronic, and acute construction health risks are significant both on-site and over a large area surrounding the Project site that includes many sensitive receptors.

The major HAP emitted during construction is diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is emitted by construction equipment. DPM is a potent human carcinogen.40,41 It is also chronically42 and acutely43 toxic. In 1998, California identified DPM as a toxic air

37 IS/MND, Sections 2.1.2.1 & 2.1.2.2, pdf 201-202.
38 OEHHA, footnote (1), OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) Summary, October 11, 2023; https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference- exposure-level-rel-summary.
39 IS/MND, Tables 6, 7, pdf 27-28.
40 Cal/EPA OEHHA and American Lung Association of California, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust; https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf. See also OEHHA, Appendix A: Hot Spots Unit Risk and Cancer Potency Values, p. 1 (DPM unit risk = 3 E-4); https://oehha.ca.gov/media/CPFs042909.pdf and OEHHA, Diesel Exhaust Particulate; https://oehha.ca.gov/chemicals/diesel-exhaust-particulate#:~:text=Cancer%20Potency %20Information&text=Listed%20as%20Particulate%20Emissions%20from,(ug%2Fm3)%2D1. 41 OEHHA and the American Lung Association of California, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust; https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf. See also: OEHHA, Diesel Exhaust Particulate; https://oehha.ca.gov/chemicals/diesel-exhaust-particulate#:~:text=Cancer %20Potency%20Information&text=Listed%20as%20Particulate%20Emissions%20from,(ug%2Fm3)%2D1. 42 OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) Summary, June 28, 2016; https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel- summary.
43 Government of Canada, Human Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust, March 4, 2016; http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/sc-hc/H129-60-2016-eng.pdf. 304
12 contaminant (TAC) based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death, and other health problems (e.g., asthma attacks and other respiratory symptoms).44 OEHHA has concluded that “[e]xposure to diesel exhaust can have immediate health effects,” which include “inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks.”45 Thus, there are two noncancer hazard indices: chronic (long-term) and acute (1-hour). The most likely noncancer index to be exceeded during construction is the acute hazard index. The IS/MND included DPM in its chronic and cancer risk assessment but did not conduct an acute HRA for DPM,46 thus failing as an informational document under CEQA.

4.1. The HRAs Used the Wrong Meteorological Data
The IS/MND construction and operational HRAs used meteorological data from Concord (Buchanan Field Airport), whose nearest runway is about 10 miles southwest of the Project site,47 rather than meteorological data from Pittsburg, near the Project site.

The IS/MND asserts with no analysis that the Concord station was selected “as being the most representative meteorology based on proximity.”48 This is wrong. There are three meteorological stations within 5 miles of the Project site, yet the HRA chose to use meteorological data from Buchanan Field that has a completely different wind pattern that significantly underestimates Project ambient air quality and public health impacts.

The wind rose for the meteorological data used in the IS/MND’s HRA is shown in Figure 3.

44 IS/MND, pdf 201-202.
45 OEHHA and the American Lung Association of California, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust; https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf. 46 IS/MND, Tables 6 and 7, pdf 27-28.
47 IS/MND, pdf 79.
48 IS/MND, pdf 207.
305
13 Figure 3: Wind Rose for Concord Buchanan Field Used in the IS/MND’s HRA

As noted previously, there are three met stations within 5 miles of the Project site that are more representative of wind conditions at the Project site than data from Concord. Figure 4 is a wind rose for the adjacent Dow Chemical facility in Pittsburg, 306
14 located 1.1 miles northeast of the Project site. I revised the HRA using this wind data, but otherwise retaining the IS/MND’s assumptions. Comments 4.3 – 4.5.

Figure 4: Wind Rose for Pittsburg (Dow Chemical)

307
15 4.2. Construction DPM Emissions
Construction equipment emits diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is a potent human carcinogen.49,50 It is also chronically51 and acutely52 toxic. In 1998, California identified DPM as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death, and other health problems (e.g., asthma attacks and other respiratory symptoms).53 OEHHA has concluded that “[e]xposure to diesel exhaust can have immediate health effects,” which include “inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks.”54 Thus, there are two noncancer hazard indices: chronic (long-term) and acute (1-hour). The most likely noncancer index to be exceeded during construction is the acute hazard index. The IS/MND included DPM in its chronic and cancer risk assessment but did not conduct an acute HRA for DPM,55 thus failing as an informational document under CEQA. The cancer, chronic, and acute health impacts of DPM emissions are presented in Comments 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. The following sections address the cancer, chronic, and acute health impacts of DPM emissions during Project construction.

4.3. Revised Construction Cancer Health Risks Are Significant As explained in Comment 4.1, the IS/MND’s cancer risk assessment was based on met data from Concord (Figure 3), which is not representative of wind conditions at the Project site in Pittsburg (Figure 4). Thus, the HRA was revised using Pittsburg

49 Cal/EPA OEHHA and American Lung Association of California, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust; https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf. See also OEHHA, Appendix A: Hot Spots Unit Risk and Cancer Potency Values, p. 1 (DPM unit risk = 3 E-4); https://oehha.ca.gov/media/CPFs042909.pdf and OEHHA, Diesel Exhaust Particulate; https://oehha.ca.gov/chemicals/diesel-exhaust-particulate#:~:text=Cancer%20Potency %20Information&text=Listed%20as%20Particulate%20Emissions%20from,(ug%2Fm3)%2D1. 50 OEHHA and the American Lung Association of California, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust; https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf. See also: OEHHA, Diesel Exhaust Particulate; https://oehha.ca.gov/chemicals/diesel-exhaust-particulate#:~:text=Cancer %20Potency%20Information&text=Listed%20as%20Particulate%20Emissions%20from,(ug%2Fm3)%2D1. 51 OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) Summary, June 28, 2016; https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel- summary.
52 Government of Canada, Human Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust, March 4, 2016; http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/sc-hc/H129-60-2016-eng.pdf. 53 IS/MND, pdf 201-202.
54 OEHHA and the American Lung Association of California, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust; https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf. 55 IS/MND, Tables 6 and 7, pdf 27-28.
308
16 (Dow Chemical) meteorological data but otherwise retaining the IS/MND’s risk assessment assumptions.

The IS/MND estimated on-site offroad construction DPM emissions of 1.6550 tons/yr in 2024 and 0.02 tons/yr in 2025 for an average of 0.8375 tons/yr.56 The resulting cancer risk isopleths using Pittsburgh Dow Chemical meteorological data but otherwise retaining the IS/MND’s assumptions are presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Construction 2-Year Cancer Risk Based on Construction DPM Emissions57

This analysis shows that the 2-year construction cancer risk exceeds the BAAQMD’s cancer significance threshold of 10 in one million over a large area surrounding the Project site, detailed below. These risk estimates are based on the annual DPM emission rate of 1.655 tons/yr for 2024 and 0.02 tons/yr for 2025.58 The average is 0.8375 tons/yr over the 2-year construction period. Receptors where the cancer risk will exceed 10 in one million include:

56 IS/MND, pdf 236: 8. Annual Onsite Offroad DPM Exhaust Construction Emissions by Phase. See also IS/MND, Table 8, pdf 236.
57 The risk estimates are based on construction emissions of 1.64 lb/day. 58 IS/MND, pdf 24.
309
17 (1) at the Edgewater Apartments 800 feet southwest of the Project at 2105 Carion Ct (Figure 6) (17.7 cancers per million);
(2) at the Diamond Hillside Apartments (2205 East Leland Road) 1,900 feet southeast of the Project (20.2 cancers per million)59 (Figure 7); (3) at the Martin Luther King Jr. Junior High School 1,300 feet west of the Project site (11 cancers per million) (Figure 8);
(4) in many residential areas within the significant impact isopleths (Figure 5); (5) at the Delta Oaks Presbyterian Church 600 feet southwest of the Project site; (6) at many off-site nearby businesses, e.g., Ideal Home Décor Center, Inc., Starbucks, Jack in the Box, Hampton Inn & Suites Pittsburg, Grabber Construction Products, Linde Welding Gas & Equipment Center, and Ideal Home Décor Center, Inc., among many others.

Thus, construction cancer risks are significant, requiring mitigation such as the use of all Tier 4 Final construction equipment.

Figure 6: Edgewater Apartments (2105 Carion Ct.)

59 IS/MND, pdf 24.
310
18 Figure 7: Diamond Hillside Apartments (2205 East Leland Road)

Figure 8: Martin Luther King Jr. Junior High School

311
19 4.4. Revised Construction Chronic Health Impacts
Chronic health impacts occur from continuous exposures for up to a lifetime.60 The OEHHA chronic reference exposure level (REL) for DPM is 5 µg/m3.61,62 The construction 1-hour DPM emissions would exceed the 5 µg/m3 REL (and the BAAQMD non-cancer chronic hazard index of 1) in a large area surrounding the Project site that includes commercial areas. Figure 9. Thus, chronic health impacts are significant for construction workers and workers at businesses within the 5 µg/m3 isopleth.

Figure 9: Chronic (8-Hr) DPM Construction Health Impacts (µg/m3)

60 OEHHA, footnote (1), OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) Summary, October 11, 2023; https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference- exposure-level-rel-summary.
61 Id.
62 BAAQMD, Section 3. Thresholds of Significance, pdf 4, Table 3-1; https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines-2022/ceqa- guidelines-chapter-3-thresholds_final_v2-pdf.pdf?la=en. 312
20 4.5. Construction Acute Health Impacts Are Significant The IS/MND did not evaluate short-term, acute exposures to DPM during construction.63 Short-term exposures of 1 hour, known as acute exposures, are routinely evaluated in health risk assessments using Reference Exposure Levels or RELs. An acute REL “is an exposure that is not likely to cause adverse health effects in a human population, including sensitive subgroups, exposed to that concentration (in units of micrograms per cubic meter or µg/m3) for the specified exposure duration on an intermittent basis.”64 Concentrations greater than the acute REL are assumed to cause significant acute health impacts. Thus, I prepared an acute construction health risk assessment to determine acute 1-hour health risks to sensitive receptors, which include construction workers, on-site operational workers, and off-site workers and residents.

The acute hazard index is the ratio of the modeled 1-hour concentration from Project emissions to the acute REL.65 The OEHHA and the BAAQMD have not established an acute REL for DPM, but other agencies have. The BAAQMD and OEHHA risk guidance do not require the use of an OEHHA acute risk exposure level.

The absence of an OEHHA acute risk exposure level does not excuse the Applicant from evaluating acute health risks.

OEHHA has concluded that “[e]xposure to diesel exhaust can have immediate (acute) health effects,” which include “inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks.”66 The IS/MND included DPM in its chronic and cancer risk assessment but did not conduct an acute HRA for DPM,67 thus failing as an informational document under CEQA.

While OEHHA has not established an acute REL for DPM, other agencies have.

In the absence of an OEHHA significance threshold, it is standard practice to conduct a literature search to determine if other authorities have established a threshold. Since

63 IS/MND, Section 2.2.5.4, pdf 211-212.
64 OEHHA, Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015, p. 6-3; https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 65 OEHHA, OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) Summary, October 11, 2023; https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level- rel-summary.
66 OEHHA and the American Lung Association of California, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust; https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf. 67 IS/MND, Tables 6 and 7, pdf 27-28.
313
21 OEHHA last evaluated health impacts of DPM in 1998,68 substantial additional research has been conducted on acute health impacts of DPM.69 Based on this more current research, Canada recently established an acute REL for DPM of 10 µg/m3 to protect against adverse effects on the respiratory system.70 There is no regulation or guidance requiring that only OEHHA RELs be used in California health risk assessments. The emission of DPM during construction should have triggered a construction acute health risk assessment using the Canadian acute REL.

Construction workers have the greatest exposure to DPM emissions. They are adjacent to DPM emissions because they operate and maintain the equipment that emits DPM. Further, there are nearby sensitive receptors that would be exposed to construction emissions, including workers at adjacent businesses and residents.

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA’s) risk assessment guidelines recommend a formal health risk assessment for short-term construction exposures lasting longer than 2 months, and exposures from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project.71 The duration of construction for this Project is approximately 2 years.72 OEHHA risk assessment guidelines recommend a health risk assessment for these short-term construction projects.73 The IS/MND fails as an informational document under CEQA for failing to conduct an acute HRA for DPM emissions from project construction and for failing to consider construction workers as sensitive receptors.

Risk assessments are also conducted to determine acute 1-hour health risks to sensitive receptors, which include construction workers, on-site operational workers, and off-site workers and residents. Acute health impacts are those that occur from short-term, typically 1-hour exposures. The acute hazard index is the ratio of the

68 Findings of the Scientific Review Panel on the Report on Diesel Exhaust, 1998; https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/dieseltac/de-fnds.pdf.
69 See, e.g., A. A. Mehus and others, Comparison of Acute Health Effects from Exposures to Diesel and Biodiesel Fuel Emissions and references cited therein, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, v. 57, no. 7, pp. 705-712, July 2015; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4479787/. 70 Government of Canada, Human Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust, March 4, 2016; http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/sc-hc/H129-60-2016-eng.pdf. 71 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015 (OEHHA 2015), Section 8.2.10: Cancer Risk Evaluation of Short Term Projects, pp. 8-17/18; https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air- toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0. 72 IS/MND, pdf 206.
73 IS/MND, pdf 275, 277, 284 (“Analysis was prepared consistent with OEHHA Guidance (OEHHA 2015).”), pdf 289.
314
22 modeled 1-hour concentration from Project emissions to the acute REL.74 The acute REL for DPM is 10 µg/m3. Construction 1-hour DPM emissions would exceed 10 µg/m3 and the BAAQMD acute non-cancer hazard index threshold of 1.0 in a large area surrounding the Project site that includes many residential and commercial areas and a high school. Thus, construction acute health impacts are significant for construction workers, workers at businesses, residences, and students within the 10 µg/m3 isopleth.

Figure 10.

Figure 10: Acute DPM Construction Health Impacts (µg/m3)

The IS/MND asserts that, according to the BAAQMD, “workers are not considered sensitive receptors because all employers must follow regulations set forth by the Occupation Safety and Health Administration to ensure the health and well -
being of their employees.”75 However, no citation is provided for this assertion, and I

74 OEHHA, OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) Summary, October 11, 2023; https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level- rel-summary.
75 IS/MND, pdf 23-24.
315
23 was unable to find any support for it in BAAQMD CEQA guidance. Regardless, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not supersede CEQA.

BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines include “off-site workers and students, consistent with the Air District’s permitting requirement.”76 Further, these Guidelines identify “sensitive receptors” as “people – children, adults, and seniors – occupying or residing in . . . residential dwellings . . . places of business . . . . Worker receptors are off-site locations where people work, including indoor and outdoor areas and commercial/industrial areas currently zoned or planned to be zoned for manufacturing, light or heavy industry, office, or retail activity.”77 The IS/MND does not evaluate health impacts to off-site residents, workers, or students, failing as an informational document under CEQA.

4.5.1. Construction and Operational Workers
Workers will be present on-site and off-site during Project construction, operation, and decommissioning. On-site and off-site construction and on-site
operational workers are sensitive receptors that must be included in CEQA analyses.

My analysis of worker impacts summarized in Figure 12 indicates that workers in many off-site businesses will experience significant acute health impacts from Project construction.

4.5.2. Public Receptors
Public sensitive receptors are present in areas that will be affected by the Project.

These include residents at the Edgewater Apartments 800 feet southwest of the Project; residents at the
Diamond Hillside Apartments south of the Project; and workers and students at Martin Luther King Junior High School 1,300 feet west of the Project site.78 Motorists on adjacent roadways are also sensitive receptors who could experience acute impacts.

5. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The IS/MND concludes that the Project would not 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 without

76 BAAQMD, Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix E: Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, pdf 15; https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines-2022/appendix-e-recommended-methods-for-screening-and-modeling- local-risks-and-hazards_final-pdf.pdf?rev=b8917a27345a4a629fc18fc8650951e4. 77 BAAQMD, Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix E, pdf 22-23. 78 IS/MND, pdf 23.
316
24 any analysis.79 However, as documented in this comment, accidents have occurred at many similar facilities. Thus, accidents at the proposed facility cannot be dismissed.

An accident could result in significant impacts to on-site workers and off-site workers and residents. The IS/MND failed to evaluate and mitigate the impacts of accidents at the proposed facility, during product loading and product transport to market, thus failing as an informational document under CEQA.

Industrial cryogenic air separation plants present potential hazards to both on- site workers and off-site parties80 that must be disclosed and mitigated.81 The hazards include electricity, gases under pressure, very low temperatures, the ability of oxygen to accelerate combustion, ambient air quality, the asphyxiant properties of nitrogen, argon, and the rare gases, and the harmful effects of breathing high concentrations of oxygen,82 as follows:83
• Cryogenic injuries or burns resulting from skin contact with very cold vapor, liquid, or surfaces. Effects are similar to those of a heat burn. Severity varies with the temperature and time of exposure. Exposed or insufficiently protected parts of the body can stick to cold surfaces due to the rapid freezing of available moisture, and skin and flesh can be torn on removal;
• Risk of frostbite or hypothermia (general cooling of the body) in a cold environment. There can be warning signs, in the case of frostbite, while the body sections freeze. As the body temperature drops, the first indications of hypothermia are bizarre or unusual behavior followed, often rapidly, by loss of consciousness;
• Respiratory problems caused by the inhalation of cold gas. Short-term exposure generally causes discomfort; however, prolonged inhalation can result in effects leading to serious illness such as pulmonary oedema or pneumonia; and

79 IS/MND, pdf 55.
80 EIGA, Hazards of Inert Gases and Oxygen Depletion, ISC Document 44/09/E, 2009; https://www.linde-
gas.com/en/images/Hazards%20of%20inert%20gases%20and%20oxygen%20depletion_tcm17- 13909.pdf.
81 See, for example, AIGA, Safe Practices Guide for Cryogenic Air Separations Plants, AIGA 056/23; https://www.asiaiga.org/uploaded_docs/en_AIGA_056_23_Safe_Practice_Guide_for_Cryogenic_Air_S eparation_Plants_Clean_Copy_10_Aug_2023.pdf.
82 Schmidt et al., 2001, p. 11.
83 EIGA, Guideline for Safe Practices for Cryogenic Air Separation Plants, Doc 147/22, Section 5.1, pdf 16; https://www.eiga.eu/uploads/documents/DOC147.pdf.
317
25 • Hazardous concentrations and/or reduced visibility can also occur at considerable distances from the point of discharge, depending on topography and weather conditions. Cold gases are heavier than air, tend to settle and flow to low levels, and can create a dense water vapor fog.

Any industrial process that generates or uses oxygen creates elevated risks of fire. In air separation plants, for example, pure oxygen is in contact with equipment.

Friction, mechanical impacts, and/or contact with organic materials incompatible with oxygen can quickly ignite a fire inside of valves and other equipment, resulting in explosion-like reactions. Any flammable material in contact with oxygen will readily burn once ignited, including metals.

These plants process large amounts of strong oxidants, such as concentrated oxygen and liquid oxygen at extremely low temperatures and high pressures. Thus, the danger of explosions and bursting is constantly present. In Japan, for example, “numerous accidents have occurred at various locations at air separation plants.” The total number of casualties in Japan from accidents at air separation plants as of 1970 was 48, of which 37 were from explosions, 6 from bursting, 3 from burns, and one each from frostbite and suffocation. Half of these, 24, occurred in the reboiler of the liquefaction column.84
Oxygen concentrations greater than 23.5% create fire hazards as oxygen promotes very rapid combustion of flammable materials and some materials that are normally regarded as nonflammable. Oxygen concentrations above 23.5% dramatically increase the ease of ignition of clothing. Once ignited by even a spark or cigarette, clothing can burst into flames and burn rapidly. Even body hair is subject to flash fires that can spread rapidly over the entire exposed surface.

The IS/MND is silent on these risks and the measures that are currently in place in the existing operations building and measures that will be implemented to accommodate this Project to protect on-site workers. Thus, the IS/MND fails as an informational document under CEQA for failing to disclose these worker risks and for failing to mitigate them. The workers will use existing facilities at the existing Linde plant. However, the IS/MND fails to disclose any design details of these existing facilities relevant to worker safety in the instant IS/MND.

84 NASA, Translation of the Entire Issue of The Journal of Ammonium Sulphate Engineering, Survey of Accidents at Air Separation Plants, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1964, 47 pp, December 1970, pdf 16-17, Table 2; https://dn790005.ca.archive.org/0/items/nasa_techdoc_19710003182/19710003182.pdf. 318
26 5.1. Operational Hazards Were Not Evaluated
The IS/MND discloses that “the cryogenic temperatures and extreme purity of the gases create their own hazards. Linde has met with the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) for training and tours of their existing facility and will continue to do so for the proposed expansion.”85 However, the IS/MND does not disclose the hazards that have been and would be discussed with CCCFPD nor analyze these Project impacts to on-site workers and off-site workers, residents, and students.

Any industrial process that generates or uses oxygen, for example, has an elevated risk of fire. In air separation plants, pure oxygen is in contact with different types of equipment. Friction, mechanical impact, and contact with organic materials not compatible with oxygen can quickly spark a fire inside valves, for example. The resulting explosion-like reaction is a substantial risk to people working nearby. The IS/MND fails to discuss these risks and impose mitigation, thus failing as an informational document under CEQA.

Hydrogen also presents significant problems that are not addressed in the IS/MND. Hydrogen is prone to material damage, which may lead to leakage. High- pressure leaking hydrogen is highly susceptible to spontaneous combustion due to its combustion characteristics, which may cause a jet fire or explosion, resulting in serious casualties and property damage.86 While hydrogen has many advantages as a fuel, it presents safety issues that are not discussed in the IS/MND compared with natural gas, including easy leakage, low minimum ignition energy, wide flammable range in air, wide explosion volume and embrittlement effects.87 Further:88

85 IS/MND, pdf 13, 50, 83, 120, 321.
86 Hao Li and others, Safety of Hydrogen Storage and Transportation: An Overview on Mechanisms, Techniques, and Challenges, Energy Reports, v. 8, November 2022, pp. 6285-6296; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484722008332. 87 Ibid.
88 Ibid.
319
27 Thus, these authors concluded that “[b]ecause of these dangerous attributes and the high cost, the large-scale utilization of hydrogen is subject to certain restrictions.

Therefore, it is necessary to conduct detailed and in-depth research on the safety of hydrogen to ensure its safe and economic large-scale utilization.” The IS/MND also does not include a HAZOP, a formal structured process to ensure that all aspects of a plant are addressed, including startup, shutdown, normal operation, materials of construction, etc.89 The Asia Industrial Gases Association (AIGA), for example, states as follows (emphasis in original):90

The IS/MND does not address any of these issues. The facility is located in close proximity to hydrocarbon, corrosive, toxic, and other hazardous chemical sources (e.g., the adjacent Linde facility), thus requiring a Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA). The IS/MND does not include a QRA, which is required under CEQA when the public at large, as here, could be affected. Further, given the hazards of these facilities, once the

89 William K. Schmidt, Karen S. Winegardner, Howard Castle-Smith, and Martin Dennehy, Safe Design and Operation of a Cryogenic Air Separation Unit, Process Safety Progress, December 2001, v. 20, no. 4, p. 3;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227599641_Safe_design_and_operation_of_a_Cryogenic_Air _Separation_Unit.
90 AIGA, Safe Practices Guide for Cryogenic Air Separation Plants, AIGA 056/14, Section 6.1, pdf 15; https://asiaiga.org/uploaded_docs/AIGA_056_14%20Safe%20practices%20guide%20for%20cryogenic% 20air%20separation%20plants.pdf.
320
28 plant is operational, regular training sessions and safety meetings should be required.

None are required in the IS/MND. The plant includes a cooling tower near roads but the IS/MND does not address the potential hazard of the cooling tower plume or cryogenic fog impacting nearby plants or vehicular traffic on nearby roads. Thus, the IS/MND fails as an informational document under CEQA.

Other important design considerations identified in AIGA 056 and other documents cited in these comments—including safety factors in plant layout, materials of construction, handling of aluminum packing during installation, construction materials, insulation, cleaning, electrical risks, and intake air quality—cannot be evaluated as the IS/MND does not contain adequate process design information to evaluate impacts, thus failing as an informational document under CEQA.

These plants have many potential significant hazards that are not disclosed or mitigated in the IS/MND. These include impacts arising from adjacent facilities; the proximity of electricity, gases under pressure, very low temperatures, the ability of oxygen to accelerate combustion, the asphyxiant properties of nitrogen, argon, and the rare gases; and ambient air quality. The IS/MND does not discuss any of these issues or impose mitigation91 for their impacts. Rather, the IS/MND asserts, with no support, as follows:92

Air separation plants have four major hazards: (1) rapid oxidation; (2) embrittlement; (3) pressure excursions due to vaporizing liquids; and (4) oxygen enriched or deficient atmospheres. Other conditions that can lead to accidents include

91 Emerson, How to Improve Reliability and Safety of Air Separation Units; https://www.emerson.com/documents/automation/air-separation-e-book-web-en-8092214.pdf. 92 IS/MND, pdf 83.
321
29 (1) presence of moisture and water vapor; (2) impurities and contaminants in the air; and (3) failure to maintain optimal temperature and pressure.93 These hazards are typically caused by unanticipated changes in intake air quality. However, the IS/MND fails to disclose the nature of these “hazards” and fails to evaluate their impact on operational workers at the facility and off-site sensitive receptors, thus failing as an informational document under CEQA.

5.1.1. Accidents at Existing Facilities
Some of the accidents that have been reported in published sources are reviewed in this section to illustrate the hazards of air separation plants.

First, on December 25, 1997, a major explosion occur
red at an air separation plant
(2,500 t/d oxygen at 99.8% purity) in Malaysia. The explosion resulted in blast damage to a distance of 5 km. A total of 12 people were injured. The major elements of the ASU were destroyed, and severe damage was done to surrounding facilities. The incident was caused by “considerable hydrocarbon ingress . . ., stemming from forest fires, passing the air purification system, and vaporizer fouling due to nitrous oxide crystals, giving rise to the accumulation of combustible deposit in the closed cycle cores. Once hydrocarbon combustion was triggered, it led to aluminum combustion.”94 A similar explosion occurred a few months earlier in China.95 The authors concluded as follows:96

As smoke from forest fires is likely to be present in the Project area, a hazard analysis is critically important to assure the safety of the Project. Molecular sieves are

93 Common Challenges in Air Separation Plants: How Molecular Sieves Can Help, October 28, 2023; https://www.molecularsievedesiccants.com/blogs/common-challenges-in-air-separation-plants-how- molecular-sieves-can-help.
94 R. M. van Hardeveld, M. J. Groeneveld, J.-Y. Lehman, and D. C. Bull, Investigation of an Air Separation Unit Explosion, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, v. 14, issue 3, pp. 167-180, 2001; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950423000000450. 95 ARIA, Explosion in an Air Distillation Unit, 12/25/1997; https://www.aria.developpement- durable.gouv.fr/accident/23132_en/?lang=en.
96 Ibid.
322
30 very efficient at the adsorption of impurities and contaminants in air,97 such as smoke and other air contaminants likely present at the site due to its industrial character.

Two very serious accidents involving large manually actuated isolation valves occurred at air separation plants in liquid oxygen service. In both incidents there were two fatalities.98
A July 19, 2019 explosion at a plant in China’s Henan Province caused 15 fatalities, many more injuries, and enormous plant damage.99,100 Figure 11.

Figure 11: Air Separation Plant Accident in Yima City, Central China, July 7, 2019101

97 Common Challenges in Air Separation Plants: How Molecular Sieves Can Help, October 28, 2023; https://www.molecularsievedesiccants.com/blogs/common-challenges-in-air-separation-plants-how- molecular-sieves-can-help.
98 EIGA, Experiences and Lessons, Air Separation Unit Accidents, November 28, 2022; https://www.molecularsievedesiccants.com/blogs/common-challenges-in-air-separation-plants-how- molecular-sieves-can-help; https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/experiences-lessons-air-separation-unit- accident-airseparationunit/.
99 Emerson, How to Improve Reliability and Safety of Air Separation Units; https://www.emerson.com/documents/automation/air-separation-e-book-web-en-8092214.pdf. . 100 WION, China: Blast Occurred I the Air Separation Unit; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfmDjLQ_vuI.
101 Yima City, Central China, July 20, 2019; https://www.euronews.com/video/2019/07/20/aerial- footage-reveals-ruins-of-gas-plant-after-powerful-blast. 323
31 5.1.2. Ambient Air Quality
Air contains many trace impurities that can cause plugging, corrosion, or which are reactive, leading to accidents. Tables
2 and 3. The AIGA discloses intake air quality
impacts as follows (emphasis in original):102

Table 2: Trace Contaminants in Air103

(a) This is a typical design basis. For most components, the actual value will be lower. (b) Approximate breakthrough order for conventional PPU’s (first to last):

CH4 >C2H6 >NO >C3H8 >N2O >C2H4 >CO2 >> C3H6, NO2, HCl, SO2, C2H2, C4+ > H2O.

102 Asia Industrial Gases Association (AIGA), Safe Practices Guide for Cryogenic Air Separation Plants, Based on CGA P-8-2013, Fifth Edition, Section 7, pdf 18; https://asiaiga.org/uploaded_docs/AIGA_056_14%20Safe%20practices%20guide%20for%20cryogenic% 20air%20separation%20plants.pdf.
103 Schmidt et al., 2001, p. 14.
324
32 Table 3: Plugging, Reactive, and Corrosive Contaminants in Air104

Plugging contaminants concentrate, precipitate out as a solid, or both. While this is an operating problem, it can also lead to dry boiling or pool boiling, which can concentrate the reactive contaminant to form flammable mixtures. The plugging contaminants of most concern are water, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide,105 which are all present at the site. Tables 2, 3.

Reactive contaminants can concentrate in the ASU and form flammable mixtures with oxygen or enriched air. The most important reactive contaminants in air are methane, ethane, ethylene, acetylene, propane, and propylene. Hydrocarbon aerosols from smoke and haze are a special type of reactive contaminant. Corrosive contaminants (acid gases and ammonia) can react with equipment and piping, causing operating problems and impacting equipment life.106 Tables 2, 3.

These contaminants are a particular concern at the selected location due to the proximity of industrial facilities that emit pollutants. The evaluation of potential impacts from existing and future changes in air quality is essential for the safe operation of an air separation plant. This requires detailed information on existing ambient air quality and routine monitoring of air quality over the lifetime of the facility. The IS/MND fails to disclose the impact of air quality on facility operation. Further, the IS/MND is silent on existing air quality that affects the operation of an air separation

104 AIGA 056/14, Table 2, pdf 18.
105 AIGA 2013, pdf 18.
106 Ibid.
325
33 plant. The IS/MND also fails to require ambient air quality monitoring during facility operation. Thus, the IS/MND fails as an informational document under CEQA.

The Project will be located in an industrial area. Thus, contaminants can reasonably be expected in the intake air, which should have been disclosed and should be routinely monitored during Project operation:107

Trace contaminants in the intake air can cause problems in the ASU, including plugging, undesired reactions, or corrosion. Table 3. Acetylene, for example, is a very hazardous and reactive contaminant. It can concentrate in liquid oxygen and precipitate out as a solid. The resulting solid is unstable and requires little energy to ignite. The IS/MND is silent on the composition of the ambient air that would be processed in the facility and on whether this facility will be designed to remove acetylene and other contaminants from the processed air, thus failing as an informational document under CEQA. Further, the IS/MND is silent on the impact of ambient air quality on facility operation and hence the impact on on-site workers and off-site workers, residents, students, and other sensitive receptors. These hazards are typically evaluated in a design hazard review to ensure that all hazards are addressed, using the HAZOP process.

Further, once the plant is operational, regular safety training and safety meetings are required to protect on-site workers and assure the plant is operated to current standards and practices. The IS/MND is silent on worker safety training. When nearby sensitive receptors are present, as here (Comment 4.3), a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) is also required. The IS/MND is silent on the hazards of air separation plants on workers and nearby sensitive receptors and does not include a HAZOP or QRA, which are serious omissions rendering the IS/MND invalid.

The safety of an ASU depends upon the local air quality. Air contains many trace impurities (other than criteria pollutants, e.g., NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, PM2.5) that can cause plugging, corrosion, or which are reactive, leading to accidents and safety problems. Table 2 and 3. The local air quality ultimately determines the design basis of

107 EIGA Doc 147/22, Section 7, pdf 22.
326
34 an air separation plant. As air quality ultimately determines the safety of air separation plants and can change over time, the IS/MND must disclose existing ambient air quality and require routine air quality monitoring over the lifetime of the Project.

This is a particular concern at the selected location due to the proximity of industrial facilities that emit pollutants that will be present in the air that the plant processes (Tables 2, 3). The evaluation of potential impacts from existing and future changes in air quality is essential for the safe operation of an air separation plant. This requires detailed information on existing ambient air quality and routine monitoring of air quality over the operation of the facility. Molecular sieves, for example, are an effective method to remove contaminants in the air feed.108 The IS/MND is silent on the impact of air quality on the operation of the Project and measures that will be taken to monitor it during operation. The IS/MND also does not include any noncriteria pollutant ambient air quality data, thus failing as an informational document under CEQA.

In sum, industry literature discloses that the hazards of air separation plants include the proximity of electricity, gases under pressure, very low temperatures, the ability of oxygen to accelerate combustion, and the asphyxiant properties of nitrogen, argon, and the rare gases.109 The four primary hazards associated with an ASU are: (1) the potential for rapid oxidation; (2) interfaces between the ASU and the downstream systems; (3) pressure excursions due to vaporizing liquids, and (4) oxygen enriched or deficient atmospheres. The IS/MND fails to disclose accidents that have occurred at similar facilities and to impose mitigation to protect on-site workers and off-site workers and residents,110 thus failing as an informational document under CEQA.

108 Common Challenges in Air Separation Plants: How Molecular Sieves Can Help, October 28, 2023; https://www.molecularsievedesiccants.com/blogs/common-challenges-in-air-separation-plants-how- molecular-sieves-can-help.
109 Schmidt et al., 2001.
110 Experiences and Lessons, Air Separation Unit Accident, November 28, 2022; https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/experiences-lessons-air-separation-unit-accident-airseparationunit/; R. M. van Hardeveld et al., Investigation of an Air Separation Unit Explosion, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, v. 14, issue 3, pp. 167-180, 2001; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950423000000450; Rich Gottwald, Lessons Learned: 2019 Yima City ASU Incident, Gas World, October 8, 2021; https://www.gasworld.com/story/lessons-learned-2019-yima-city-asu-incident/. 327
35 5.2. Mitigation
The plant should be designed and operated to minimize the risk of accidents.

Important safety features not mentioned in the IS/MND include:
• Analysis of CO2 at the PPU exit to verify proper operation; • Measure LOX purge >/= 0.2% of the air to ensure no contaminant buildup in the reboiler sump;
• Analysis of hydrocarbons to assure < 450 ppm as C1 equivalent to ensure no hydrocarbon building in reboiler sump;
• Batch analysis to verify that each component is present at acceptable level; • Periodic defrost to remove trace components from low flow areas; • Downflow reboiler exist CO2 concentration < 6% solubility to ensure CO2 and N2O do not accumulate at too high of a rate.

Workers must wear protective clothing and personal protective equipment (PPE) to minimize the risk of injury due to fire hazards when working with oxygen or burns when working with cryogenic liquids or gases. Insulated or leather gloves are required when handling anything cooled with cryogenic liquids and during cryogenic liquid loading and unloading. Safety glasses with side shields and a face shield shall be worn at all times when handling cryogenic liquids. Flame retardant materials such as Nomex should be used for work clothing and footwear should not include exposed metallic protectors that could cause sparking.111

6. LOADING/TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
The products will be stored on site in three large tanks and transferred into bulk trucks for delivery into smaller tanks at customer locations.112 The products would be sent to market using trucks,113 starting at six to seven per day and ramping up to 16 to 20 per day.114
The IS/MND does not discuss impacts of filling the trucks and transporting the products to market, including safety issues arising from loading transport vehicles, impacts from accidents that may occur enroute, and impacts from unloading products

111 EIGA Doc 147/22, Section 5.5, pdf 18.
112 IS/MND, pdf 5, 7, 26, 85.
113 IS/MND, pdf 318.
114 IS/MND, pdf 85.
328
36 into customer tanks, thus failing as an informational document under CEQA. Accidents have occurred during filling and transporting these products.

For example, a major uncontrolled release of high-pressure hydrogen occurred in Santa Clara, California, on June 1, 2019, during a gaseous hydrogen fill of a modular multicylinder trailer. The Air Products transfill facility pressurizes liquid hydrogen from an on-site storage tank, warms it to ambient temperature, and transfers the gaseous hydrogen into high-pressure trailer assemblies, which deliver the hydrogen to retails fueling locations. Curtailment of hydrogen deliveries to vehicle refueling stations in northern California occurred while the accident investigation was under way. The post-accident causal analysis concluded as follows:115

115 Hydrogen Safety Panel, Report on the June 2019 Hydrogen Explosion and Fire Incident in Santa Clara, California, June 2021; https://h2tools.org/sites/default/files/2021- 06/AP_Santa_Clara_Incident_Review_Report_Rev1.pdf.
329
37 In response, Air Products implemented improved training and retraining of drivers, improved trailer filling procedures, and equipment evaluations and modifications.

330
Phyllis Fox, Ph.D, PE
Environmental Management
745 White Pine Ave.

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

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

EDUCATION
Ph.D. Environmental/Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1980.

M.S. Environmental/Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1975.

B.S. Physics (with high honors), University of Florida, Gainesville, 1971.

REGISTRATION

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

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

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
American Chemical Society (1981-2010)
Phi Beta Kappa (1970-present)
Sigma Pi Sigma (1970-present)
Who's Who Environmental Registry, PH Publishing, Fort Collins, CO, 1992.

Who's Who in the World, Marquis Who's Who, Inc., Chicago, IL, 11th Ed., p. 371, 1993-present. 331
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 2

Who's Who of American Women, Marquis Who's Who, Inc., Chicago, IL, 13th Ed., p. 264, 1984- present.

Who's Who in Science and Engineering, Marquis Who's Who, Inc., New Providence, NJ, 5th Ed., p. 414, 1999-present.

Who’s Who in America, Marquis Who’s Who, Inc., 59th Ed., 2005.

Guide to Specialists on Toxic Substances, World Environment Center, New York, NY, p. 80, 1980.

National Research Council Committee on Irrigation-Induced Water Quality Problems (Selenium), Subcommittee on Quality Control/Quality Assurance (1985-1990).

National Research Council Committee on Surface Mining and Reclamation, Subcommittee on Oil Shale (1978-80)

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Performed environmental and engineering investigations, as outlined below, for a wide range of industrial and commercial facilities including: biomass, gas, and oil-fire boilers; petroleum refineries and upgrades thereto; reformulated fuels projects; refinery upgrades to process heavy sour crudes, including tar sands and light sweet crudes from the Eagle Ford and Bakken Formations; petroleum, gasoline and ethanol distribution terminals; coal, coke, and ore/mineral export terminals; LNG export, import, and storage terminals; crude-by-rail projects; shale oil plants; crude oil/condensate marine and rail terminals; coal gasification and liquefaction plants; oil and gas production, including conventional, thermally enhanced, hydraulic fracking, and acid stimulation techniques; underground storage tanks; pipelines; compressor stations; gasoline stations; landfills; railyards; hazardous waste treatment facilities; nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, wood, biomass, waste, tire-derived fuel, gas, oil, coke and coal-fired power plants; wind farms; solar energy facilities; battery energy storage systems (BESS); transmission lines; airports; hydrogen plants; petroleum coke calcining plants; coke plants; activated carbon manufacturing facilities; asphalt plants; cement plants; incinerators; flares; manufacturing facilities (e.g., semiconductors, electronic assembly, aerospace components, printed circuit boards, amusement park rides); lanthanide processing plants; ammonia plants; nitric acid plants; urea plants; food processing plants; wineries; almond hulling facilities; composting facilities; grain processing facilities; grain elevators; ethanol production facilities; soy bean oil extraction plants; biodiesel plants; paint formulation plants; wastewater treatment plants; marine terminals and ports; gas processing plants; steel mills; iron nugget production facilities; pig iron plant, based on blast furnace technology; direct reduced iron plant; acid regeneration facilities; railcar refinishing facility; battery manufacturing plants; pesticide manufacturing and repackaging facilities; pulp and paper mills; olefin plants; methanol plants; ethylene crackers; alumina plants, desalination plants; data centers; covered lagoon anaerobic digesters with biogas generators and upgrading equipment to produce renewable natural gas and electricity; selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems; selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) systems; halogen acid 332
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 3

furnaces; contaminated property redevelopment projects (e.g., Mission Bay, Southern Pacific Railyards, Moscone Center expansion, San Diego Padres Ballpark); residential developments; commercial office parks, campuses, and shopping centers; server farms; transportation plans; and a wide range of mines including sand and gravel, hard rock, limestone, nacholite, coal, molybdenum, gold, zinc, and oil shale.

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

EPA, In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Docket No. 14-3147.  For plaintiffs, expert witness in civil action relating to alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, for historic modifications (1997-2000) at the Cemex cement plant in Lyons, Colorado. Reviewed produced documents, prepared expert and rebuttal reports on PSD applicability based on NOx emission calculations for a collection of changes considered both individually and collectively. Deposed August 2011. United States v. Cemex, Inc., In U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Civil Action No. 09-cv-00019-MSK-MEH). Case settled June 13, 2013.
 For plaintiffs, in civil action relating to alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, for historic modifications (1988 – 2000) at James De Young Units 3, 4, and 5. Reviewed produced documents, analyzed CEMS and EIA data, and prepared netting and BACT analyses for NOx, SO2, and PM10 (PSD case). Expert report February 24, 2010 and affidavit February 20, 2010. Sierra Club v. City of Holland, et al., U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan (Civil Action 1:08-cv-1183). Case settled. Consent Decree 1/19/14.
 For plaintiffs, in civil action alleging failure to obtain MACT permit, expert on potential to emit hydrogen chloride (HCl) from a new coal-fired boiler. Reviewed record, estimated HCl emissions, wrote expert report June 2010 and March 2013 (Cost to Install a Scrubber at the Lamar Repowering Project Pursuant to Case-by-Case MACT), deposed August 2010 and 333
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 4

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

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

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

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

Reviewed produced documents and prepared prefiled testimony. Deposed 10/8/09 and 11/9/09. Testified 11/10/09. Application of Las Brisas Energy Center, LLC for State Air Quality Permit; before the State Office of Administrative Hearings, Texas. Permit remanded 3/29/10 as LBEC failed to meet burden of proof on a number of issues including MACT. 334
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 5

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

Reviewed agency files and inspected site. Presented expert testimony on July 6, 2009, on causes of, nature and extent of subsurface contamination. A. Singh v. S. Assaedi, in Contra Costa County Superior Court, CA. Settled August 2009.
 For plaintiffs, expert witness on netting and enforceability for refinery being upgraded to process tar sands crude. Reviewed produced documents. Prepared expert and rebuttal reports addressing use of emission factors for baseline, omitted sources including coker, flares, tank landings and cleaning, and enforceability. Deposed. In the Matter of Objection to the Issuance of Significant Source Modification Permit No. 089-25484-00453 to BP Products North America Inc., Whiting Business Unit, Save the Dunes Council, Inc., Sierra Club., Inc., Hoosier Environmental Council et al., Petitioners, B. P. Products North American, Respondents/Permittee, before the Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication. Case settled.
 For plaintiffs, expert witness on BACT, MACT, and enforceability in appeal of Title V permit issued to 600 MW coal-fired power plant burning Powder River Basin coal. Prepared technical comments on draft air permit. Reviewed record on appeal, drafted BACT, MACT, and enforceability pre-filed testimony. Drafted MACT and enforceability pre-filed rebuttal testimony. Deposed March 24, 2009. Testified June 10, 2009. In Re: Southwestern Electric Power Company, Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission, Consolidated Docket No. 08-006-P. Recommended Decision issued December 9, 2009 upholding issued permit. Commission adopted Recommended Decision January 22, 2010.  For plaintiffs, expert witness in remedy phase of civil action relating to alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, for historic modifications (1989- 1992) at Wabash Units 2, 3 and 5. Reviewed produced documents, prepared expert and rebuttal report on historic and current-day BACT for NOx and SO2, control costs, and excess emissions of NOx, SO2, and mercury. Deposed 10/21/08. United States et al. v. Cinergy, et al., In U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Civil Action No. IP99-1693 C-M/S. Testified 2/3/09. Memorandum Opinion & Order 5-29-09 requiring shutdown of Wabash River Units 2, 3, 5 by September 30, 2009, run at baseline until shutdown, and permanently surrender SO2 emission allowances.  For plaintiffs, expert witness in liability phase of civil action relating to alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, for three historic modifications (1997-2001) at two portland cement plants involving three cement kilns. Reviewed produced documents, analyzed CEMS data covering subject period, prepared netting analysis for NOx, SO2 and CO, and prepared expert and rebuttal reports. United States v. Cemex California 335
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 6

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

Final permit issued April 2010.
 For plaintiffs, expert witness on diesel exhaust in inverse condemnation case in which Port expanded maritime operations into residential neighborhoods, subjecting plaintiffs to noise, light, and diesel fumes. Measured real-time diesel particulate concentrations from marine vessels and tug boats on plaintiffs’ property. Reviewed documents, depositions, DVDs, and photographs provided by counsel. Deposed. Testified October 24, 2006. Ann Chargin, Richard Hackett, Carolyn Hackett, et al. v. Stockton Port District, Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin, Stockton Branch, No. CV021015. Judge ruled for plaintiffs.
 For plaintiffs, expert witness on NOx emissions and BACT in case alleging failure to obtain necessary permits and install controls on gas-fired combined-cycle turbines. Prepared and reviewed (applicant analyses) of NOx emissions, BACT analyses (water injection, SCR, ultra low NOx burners), and cost-effectiveness analyses based on site visit, plant operating records, stack tests, CEMS data, and turbine and catalyst vendor design information.

Participated in negotiations to scope out consent order. United States v. Nevada Power. Case settled June 2007, resulting in installation of dry low NOx burners (5 ppm NOx averaged over 1 hr) on four units and a separate solar array at a local business. 336
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 7

 For plaintiffs, expert witness in appeal of PSD permit issued to 850 MW coal fired boiler burning Powder River Basin coal (Iatan Unit 2) on BACT for particulate matter, sulfuric acid mist and opacity and emission calculations for alleged historic violations of PSD. Assisted in drafting technical comments, petition for review, discovery requests, and responses to discovery requests. Reviewed produced documents. Prepared expert report on BACT for particulate matter. Assisted with expert depositions. Deposed February 7, 8, 27, and 28, 2007.

In Re PSD Construction Permit Issued to Great Plains Energy, Kansas City Power & Light – Iatan Generating Station, Sierra Club v. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Great Plains Energy, and Kansas City Power & Light. Case settled March 27, 2007, providing offsets for over 6 million ton/yr of CO2 and lower NOx and SO2 emission limits.  For plaintiffs, expert witness in remedy phase of civil action relating to alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, for historic modifications of coal- fired boilers and associated equipment. Reviewed produced documents, prepared expert report on cost to retrofit 24 coal-fired power plants with scrubbers designed to remove 99% of the sulfur dioxide from flue gases. Prepared supplemental and expert report on cost estimates and BACT for SO2 for these 24 complaint units. Deposed 1/30/07 and 3/14/07.

United States and State of New York et al. v. American Electric Power, In U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Consolidated Civil Action Nos. C2-99- 1182 and C2-99-1250. Settlement announced 10/9/07.
 For plaintiffs, expert witness on BACT, enforceability, and alternatives analysis in appeal of PSD permit issued for a 270-MW pulverized coal fired boiler burning Powder River Basin coal (City Utilities Springfield Unit 2). Reviewed permitting file and assisted counsel draft petition and prepare and respond to interrogatories and document requests. Reviewed interrogatory responses and produced documents. Assisted with expert depositions.

Deposed August 2005. Evidentiary hearings October 2005. In the Matter of Linda Chipperfield and Sierra Club v. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Missouri Supreme Court denied review of adverse lower court rulings August 2007.  For plaintiffs, expert witness in civil action relating to plume touchdowns at AEP’s Gavin coal-fired power plant. Assisted counsel draft interrogatories and document requests.

Reviewed responses to interrogatories and produced documents. Prepared expert report “Releases of Sulfuric Acid Mist from the Gavin Power Station.” The report evaluates sulfuric acid mist releases to determine if AEP complied with the requirements of CERCLA Section 103(a) and EPCRA Section 304. This report also discusses the formation, chemistry, release characteristics, and abatement of sulfuric acid mist in support of the claim that these releases present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health under Section 7002(a)(1)(B) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). Citizens Against Pollution v. Ohio Power Company, In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Civil Action No. 2-04-cv-371. Case settled 12-8-06. 337
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 8

 For petitioners, expert witness in contested case hearing on BACT, enforceability, and emission estimates for an air permit issued to a 500-MW supercritical Power River Basin coal-fired boiler (Weston Unit 4). Assisted counsel prepare comments on draft air permit and respond to and draft discovery. Reviewed produced file, deposed (7/05), and prepared expert report on BACT and enforceability. Evidentiary hearings September 2005. In the Matter of an Air Pollution Control Construction Permit Issued to Wisconsin Public Service Corporation for the Construction and Operation of a 500 MW Pulverized Coal-fired Power Plant Known as Weston Unit 4 in Marathon County, Wisconsin, Case No. IH-04-21. The Final Order, issued 2/10/06, lowered the NOx BACT limit from 0.07 lb/MMBtu to 0.06 lb/MMBtu based on a 30-day average, added a BACT SO2 control efficiency, and required a

0.0005% high efficiency drift eliminator as BACT for the cooling tower. The modified permit, including these provisions, was issued 3/28/07. Additional appeals in progress.  For plaintiffs, adviser on technical issues related to Citizen Suit against U.S. EPA regarding failure to update New Source Performance Standards for petroleum refineries, 40 CFR 60, Subparts J, VV, and GGG. Our Children’s Earth Foundation and Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA et al. Case settled July 2005. CD No. C 05-00094 CW, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California – Oakland Division. Proposed revisions to standards of performance for petroleum refineries published 72 FR 27178 (5/14/07).
 For interveners, reviewed proposed Consent Decree settling Clean Air Act violations due to historic modifications of boilers and associated equipment at two coal-fired power plants. In response to stay order, reviewed the record, selected one representative activity at each of seven generating units, and analyzed to identify CAA violations. Identified NSPS and NSR violations for NOx, SO2, PM/PM10, and sulfuric acid mist. Summarized results in an expert report. United States of America, and Michael A. Cox, Attorney General of the State of Michigan, ex rel. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Plaintiffs, and Clean Wisconsin, Sierra Club, and Citizens' Utility Board, Intervenors, v. Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Defendant, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Civil Action No. 2:03-CV-00371-CNC. Order issued 10-1-07 denying petition.  For a coalition of Nevada labor organizations (ACE), reviewed preliminary determination to issue a Class I Air Quality Operating Permit to Construct and supporting files for a 250-MW pulverized coal-fired boiler (Newmont). Prepared about 100 pages of technical analyses and comments on BACT, MACT, emission calculations, and enforceability. Assisted counsel draft petition and reply brief appealing PSD permit to U.S. EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). Order denying review issued 12/21/05. In re Newmont Nevada Energy Investment, LLC, TS Power Plant, PSD Appeal No. 05-04 (EAB 2005).  For petitioners and plaintiffs, reviewed and prepared comments on air quality and hazardous waste based on negative declaration for refinery ultra low sulfur diesel project located in SCAQMD. Reviewed responses to comments and prepared responses. Prepared declaration and presented oral testimony before SCAQMD Hearing Board on exempt sources (cooling towers) and calculation of potential to emit under NSR. Petition for writ of mandate filed 338
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 9

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

Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District and ConocoPhillips and Carlos Valdez et al v. South Coast Air Quality Management District and ConocoPhillips. Certified for partial publication 1/16/08. Appellate Court opinion upheld by CA Supreme Court 3/15/10. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310.
 For amici seeking to amend a proposed Consent Decree to settle alleged NSR violations at Chevron refineries, reviewed proposed settlement, related files, subject modifications, and emission calculations. Prepared declaration on emission reductions, identification of NSR and NSPS violations, and BACT/LAER for FCCUs, heaters and boilers, flares, and sulfur recovery plants. U.S. et al. v. Chevron U.S.A., Northern District of California, Case No. C 03-04650. Memorandum and Order Entering Consent Decree issued June 2005. Case No. C 03-4650 CRB.
 For petitioners, prepared declaration on enforceability of periodic monitoring requirements, in response to EPA’s revised interpretation of 40 CFR 70.6(c)(1). This revision limited additional monitoring required in Title V permits. 69 FR 3203 (Jan. 22, 2004).

Environmental Integrity Project et al. v. EPA (U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia). Court ruled the Act requires all Title V permits to contain monitoring requirements to assure compliance. Sierra Club v. EPA, 536 F.3d 673 (D.C. Cir. 2008).  For interveners in application for authority to construct a 500 MW supercritical coal-fired generating unit before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, prepared pre-filed written direct and rebuttal testimony with oral cross examination and rebuttal on BACT and MACT (Weston 4). Prepared written comments on BACT, MACT, and enforceability on draft air permit for same facility.
 For property owners in Nevada, evaluated the environmental impacts of a 1,450-MW coal- fired power plant proposed in a rural area adjacent to the Black Rock Desert and Granite Range, including emission calculations, air quality modeling, comments on proposed use permit to collect preconstruction monitoring data, and coordination with agencies and other interested parties. Project cancelled.
 For environmental organizations, reviewed draft PSD permit for a 600-MW coal-fired power plant in West Virginia (Longview). Prepared comments on permit enforceability; coal washing; BACT for SO2 and PM10; Hg MACT; and MACT for HCl, HF, non-Hg metallic HAPs, and enforceability. Assist plaintiffs draft petition appealing air permit. Retained as expert to develop testimony on MACT, BACT, offsets, enforceability. Participate in settlement discussions. Case settled July 2004.
 For petitioners, reviewed record produced in discovery and prepared affidavit on emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds during startup of GE 7FA combustion 339
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 10

turbines to successfully establish plaintiff standing. Sierra Club et al. v. Georgia Power Company (Northern District of Georgia).
 For building trades, reviewed air quality permitting action for 1500-MW coal-fired power plant before the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection (Thoroughbred).  For petitioners, expert witness in administrative appeal of the PSD/Title V permit issued to a 1500-MW coal-fired power plant. Reviewed over 60,000 pages of produced documents, prepared discovery index, identified and assembled plaintiff exhibits. Deposed. Assisted counsel in drafting discovery requests, with over 30 depositions, witness cross examination, and brief drafting. Presented over 20 days of direct testimony, rebuttal and sur-rebuttal, with cross examination on BACT for NOx, SO2, and PM/PM10; MACT for Hg and non-Hg metallic HAPs; emission estimates for purposes of Class I and II air modeling; risk assessment; and enforceability of permit limits. Evidentiary hearings from November 2003 to June 2004. Sierra Club et al. v. Natural Resources & Environmental Protection Cabinet, Division of Air Quality and Thoroughbred Generating Company et al. Hearing Officer Decision issued August 9, 2005 finding in favor of plaintiffs on counts as to risk, BACT (IGCC/CFB, NOx, SO2, Hg, Be), single source, enforceability, and errors and omissions.

Assist counsel draft exceptions. Cabinet Secretary issued Order April 11, 2006 denying Hearing Offer’s report, except as to NOx BACT, Hg, 99% SO2 control and certain errors and omissions.
 For citizens group in Massachusetts, reviewed, commented on, and participated in permitting of pollution control retrofits of coal-fired power plant (Salem Harbor).  Assisted citizens group and labor union challenge issuance of conditional use permit for a 317,000 ft2 discount store in Honolulu without any environmental review. In support of a motion for preliminary injunction, prepared 7-page declaration addressing public health impacts of diesel exhaust from vehicles serving the Project. In preparation for trial, prepared 20-page preliminary expert report summarizing results of diesel exhaust and noise measurements at two big box retail stores in Honolulu, estimated diesel PM10 concentrations for Project using ISCST, prepared a cancer health risk assessment based on these analyses, and evaluated noise impacts.  Assisted environmental organizations to challenge the DOE Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Baja California Power and Sempra Energy Resources Cross-Border Transmissions Lines in the U.S. and four associated power plants located in Mexico (DOE EA- 1391). Prepared 20-page declaration in support of motion for summary judgment addressing emissions, including CO2 and NH3, offsets, BACT, cumulative air quality impacts, alternative cooling systems, and water use and water quality impacts. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted in part. U.S. District Court, Southern District decision concluded that the Environmental Assessment and FONSI violated NEPA and the APA due to their inadequate analysis of the potential controversy surrounding the project, water impacts, impacts from NH3 and CO2, alternatives, and cumulative impacts. Border Power Plant Working Group v.

Department of Energy and Bureau of Land Management, Case No. 02-CV-513-IEG (POR) (May 2, 2003).
340
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 11

 For Sacramento school, reviewed draft air permit issued for diesel generator located across from playfield. Prepared comments on emission estimates, enforceability, BACT, and health impacts of diesel exhaust. Case settled. BUG trap installed on the diesel generator.  Assisted unions in appeal of Title V permit issued by BAAQMD to carbon plant that manufactured coke. Reviewed District files, identified historic modifications that should have triggered PSD review, and prepared technical comments on Title V permit. Reviewed responses to comments and assisted counsel draft appeal to BAAQMD hearing board, opening brief, motion to strike, and rebuttal brief. Case settled.  Assisted California Central Coast city obtain controls on a proposed new city that would straddle the Ventura-Los Angeles County boundary. Reviewed several environmental impact reports, prepared an air quality analysis, a diesel exhaust health risk assessment, and detailed review comments. Governor intervened and State dedicated the land for conservation purposes April 2004.
 Assisted Central California city to obtain controls on large alluvial sand quarry and asphalt plant proposing a modernization. Prepared comments on Negative Declaration on air quality, public health, noise, and traffic. Evaluated process flow diagrams and engineering reports to determine whether proposed changes increased plant capacity or substantially modified plant operations. Prepared comments on application for categorical exemption from CEQA.

Presented testimony to County Board of Supervisors. Developed controls to mitigate impacts. Assisted counsel draft Petition for Writ. Case settled June 2002. Substantial improvements in plant operations were obtained including cap on throughput, dust control measures, asphalt plant loadout enclosure, and restrictions on truck routes.  Assisted oil companies on the California Central Coast in defending class action citizen’s lawsuit alleging health effects due to emissions from gas processing plant and leaking underground storage tanks. Reviewed regulatory and other files and advised counsel on merits of case. Case settled November 2001.
 Assisted oil company on the California Central Coast in defending property damage claims arising out of a historic oil spill. Reviewed site investigation reports, pump tests, leachability studies, and health risk assessments, participated in design of additional site characterization studies to assess health impacts, and advised counsel on merits of case. Prepare health risk assessment.
 Assisted unions in appeal of Initial Study/Negative Declaration ("IS/ND") for an MTBE phaseout project at a Bay Area refinery. Reviewed IS/ND and supporting agency permitting files and prepared technical comments on air quality, groundwater, and public health impacts.

Reviewed responses to comments and final IS/ND and ATC permits and assisted counsel to draft petitions and briefs appealing decision to Air District Hearing Board. Presented sworn direct and rebuttal testimony with cross examination on groundwater impacts of ethanol spills on hydrocarbon contamination at refinery. Hearing Board ruled 5 to 0 in favor of appellants, remanding ATC to district to prepare an EIR.
341
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 12

 Assisted Florida cities in challenging the use of diesel and proposed BACT determinations in prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits issued to two 510-MW simple cycle peaking electric generating facilities and one 1,080-MW simple cycle/combined cycle facility. Reviewed permit applications, draft permits, and FDEP engineering evaluations, assisted counsel in drafting petitions and responding to discovery. Participated in settlement discussions. Cases settled or applications withdrawn.
 Assisted large California city in federal lawsuit alleging peaker power plant was violating its federal permit. Reviewed permit file and applicant's engineering and cost feasibility study to reduce emissions through retrofit controls. Advised counsel on feasible and cost-effective NOx, SOx, and PM10 controls for several 1960s diesel-fired Pratt and Whitney peaker turbines. Case settled.
 Assisted coalition of Georgia environmental groups in evaluating BACT determinations and permit conditions in PSD permits issued to several large natural gas-fired simple cycle and combined-cycle power plants. Prepared technical comments on draft PSD permits on BACT, enforceability of limits, and toxic emissions. Reviewed responses to comments, advised counsel on merits of cases, participated in settlement discussions, presented oral and written testimony in adjudicatory hearings, and provided technical assistance as required. Cases settled or won at trial.
 Assisted construction unions in review of air quality permitting actions before the Indiana Department of Environmental Management ("IDEM") for several natural gas-fired simple cycle peaker and combined cycle power plants.
 Assisted coalition of towns and environmental groups in challenging air permits issued to 523 MW dual fuel (natural gas and distillate) combined-cycle power plant in Connecticut.

Prepared technical comments on draft permits and 60 pages of written testimony addressing emission estimates, startup/shutdown issues, BACT/LAER analyses, and toxic air emissions.

Presented testimony in adjudicatory administrative hearings before the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection in June 2001 and December 2001.  Assisted various coalitions of unions, citizens groups, cities, public agencies, and developers in licensing and permitting of over 110 coal, gas, oil, biomass, and pet coke-fired power plants generating over 75,000 MW of electricity. These included base-load, combined cycle, simple cycle, and peaker power plants in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and elsewhere. Prepared analyses of and comments on applications for certification, preliminary and final staff assessments, and various air, water, wastewater, and solid waste permits issued by local agencies. Presented written and oral testimony before various administrative bodies on hazards of ammonia use and transportation, health effects of air emissions, contaminated property issues, BACT/LAER issues related to SCR and SCONOx, criteria and toxic pollutant emission estimates, MACT analyses, air quality modeling, water supply and water quality issues, and methods to reduce 342
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 13

water use, including dry cooling, parallel dry-wet cooling, hybrid cooling, and zero liquid discharge systems.
 Assisted unions, cities, and neighborhood associations in challenging an EIR issued for the proposed expansion of the Oakland Airport. Reviewed two draft EIRs and prepared a health risk assessment and extensive technical comments on air quality and public health impacts.

The California Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, ruled in favor of appellants and plaintiffs, concluding that the EIR "2) erred in using outdated information in assessing the emission of toxic air contaminants (TACs) from jet aircraft; 3) failed to support its decision not to evaluate the health risks associated with the emission of TACs with meaningful analysis," thus accepting my technical arguments and requiring the Port to prepare a new EIR. See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee, City of San Leandro, and City of Alameda et al. v. Board of Port Commissioners (August 30, 2001) 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 598.  Assisted lessor of former gas station with leaking underground storage tanks and TCE contamination from adjacent property. Lessor held option to purchase, which was forfeited based on misrepresentation by remediation contractor as to nature and extent of contamination. Remediation contractor purchased property. Reviewed regulatory agency files and advised counsel on merits of case. Case not filed.  Advised counsel on merits of several pending actions, including a Proposition 65 case involving groundwater contamination at an explosives manufacturing firm and two former gas stations with leaking underground storage tanks.
 Assisted defendant foundry in Oakland in a lawsuit brought by neighbors alleging property contamination, nuisance, trespass, smoke, and health effects from foundry operation.

Inspected and sampled plaintiff's property. Advised counsel on merits of case. Case settled.  Assisted business owner facing eminent domain eviction. Prepared technical comments on a negative declaration for soil contamination and public health risks from air emissions from a proposed redevelopment project in San Francisco in support of a CEQA lawsuit. Case settled.
 Assisted neighborhood association representing residents living downwind of a Berkeley asphalt plant in separate nuisance and CEQA lawsuits. Prepared technical comments on air quality, odor, and noise impacts, presented testimony at commission and council meetings, participated in community workshops, and participated in settlement discussions. Cases settled. Asphalt plant was upgraded to include air emission and noise controls, including vapor collection system at truck loading station, enclosures for noisy equipment, and improved housekeeping.
 Assisted a Fortune 500 residential home builder in claims alleging health effects from faulty installation of gas appliances. Conducted indoor air quality study, advised counsel on merits of case, and participated in discussions with plaintiffs. Case settled. 343
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 14

 Assisted property owners in Silicon Valley in lawsuit to recover remediation costs from insurer for large TCE plume originating from a manufacturing facility. Conducted investigations to demonstrate sudden and accidental release of TCE, including groundwater modeling, development of method to date spill, preparation of chemical inventory, investigation of historical waste disposal practices and standards, and on-site sewer and storm drainage inspections and sampling. Prepared declaration in opposition to motion for summary judgment. Case settled.
 Assisted residents in east Oakland downwind of a former battery plant in class action lawsuit alleging property contamination from lead emissions. Conducted historical research and dry deposition modeling that substantiated claim. Participated in mediation at JAMS. Case settled.
 Assisted property owners in West Oakland who purchased a former gas station that had leaking underground storage tanks and groundwater contamination. Reviewed agency files and advised counsel on merits of case. Prepared declaration in opposition to summary judgment. Prepared cost estimate to remediate site. Participated in settlement discussions.

Case settled.
 Consultant to counsel representing plaintiffs in two Clean Water Act lawsuits involving selenium discharges into San Francisco Bay from refineries. Reviewed files and advised counsel on merits of case. Prepared interrogatory and discovery questions, assisted in deposing opposing experts, and reviewed and interpreted treatability and other technical studies. Judge ruled in favor of plaintiffs.
 Assisted oil company in a complaint filed by a resident of a small California beach community alleging that discharges of tank farm rinse water into the sanitary sewer system caused hydrogen sulfide gas to infiltrate residence, sending occupants to hospital. Inspected accident site, interviewed parties to the event, and reviewed extensive agency files related to incident. Used chemical analysis, field simulations, mass balance calculations, sewer hydraulic simulations with SWMM44, atmospheric dispersion modeling with SCREEN3, odor analyses, and risk assessment calculations to demonstrate that the incident was caused by a faulty drain trap and inadequate slope of sewer lateral on resident's property. Prepared a detailed technical report summarizing these studies. Case settled.  Assisted large West Coast city in suit alleging that leaking underground storage tanks on city property had damaged the waterproofing on downgradient building, causing leaks in an underground parking structure. Reviewed subsurface hydrogeologic investigations and evaluated studies conducted by others documenting leakage from underground diesel and gasoline tanks. Inspected, tested, and evaluated waterproofing on subsurface parking structure. Waterproofing was substandard. Case settled.  Assisted residents downwind of gravel mine and asphalt plant in Siskiyou County, California, in suit to obtain CEQA review of air permitting action. Prepared two declarations analyzing 344
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 15

air quality and public health impacts. Judge ruled in favor of plaintiffs, closing mine and asphalt plant.
 Assisted defendant oil company on the California Central Coast in class action lawsuit alleging property damage and health effects from subsurface petroleum contamination.

Reviewed documents, prepared risk calculations, and advised counsel on merits of case.

Participated in settlement discussions. Case settled.
 Assisted defendant oil company in class action lawsuit alleging health impacts from remediation of petroleum contaminated site on California Central Coast. Reviewed documents, designed and conducted monitoring program, and participated in settlement discussions. Case settled.
 Consultant to attorneys representing irrigation districts and municipal water districts to evaluate a potential challenge of USFWS actions under CVPIA section 3406(b)(2).

Reviewed agency files and collected and analyzed hydrology, water quality, and fishery data.

Advised counsel on merits of case. Case not filed.
 Assisted residents downwind of a Carson refinery in class action lawsuit involving soil and groundwater contamination, nuisance, property damage, and health effects from air emissions. Reviewed files and provided advice on contaminated soil and groundwater, toxic emissions, and health risks. Prepared declaration on refinery fugitive emissions. Prepared deposition questions and reviewed deposition transcripts on air quality, soil contamination, odors, and health impacts. Case settled.
 Assisted residents downwind of a Contra Costa refinery who were affected by an accidental release of naphtha. Characterized spilled naphtha, estimated emissions, and modeled ambient concentrations of hydrocarbons and sulfur compounds. Deposed. Presented testimony in binding arbitration at JAMS. Judge found in favor of plaintiffs.  Assisted residents downwind of Contra Costa County refinery in class action lawsuit alleging property damage, nuisance, and health effects from several large accidents as well as routine operations. Reviewed files and prepared analyses of environmental impacts. Prepared declarations, deposed, and presented testimony before jury in one trial and judge in second.

Case settled.
 Assisted business owner claiming damages from dust, noise, and vibration during a sewer construction project in San Francisco. Reviewed agency files and PM10 monitoring data and advised counsel on merits of case. Case settled.
 Assisted residents downwind of Contra Costa County refinery in class action lawsuit alleging property damage, nuisance, and health effects. Prepared declaration in opposition to summary judgment, deposed, and presented expert testimony on accidental releases, odor, and nuisance before jury. Case thrown out by judge, but reversed on appeal and not retried. 345
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 16

 Presented testimony in small claims court on behalf of residents claiming health effects from hydrogen sulfide from flaring emissions triggered by a power outage at a Contra Costa County refinery. Analyzed meteorological and air quality data and evaluated potential health risks of exposure to low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide. Judge awarded damages to plaintiffs.
 Assisted construction unions in challenging PSD permit for an Indiana steel mill. Prepared technical comments on draft PSD permit, drafted 70-page appeal of agency permit action to the Environmental Appeals Board challenging permit based on faulty BACT analysis for electric arc furnace and reheat furnace and faulty permit conditions, among others, and drafted briefs responding to four parties. EPA Region V and the EPA General Counsel intervened as amici, supporting petitioners. EAB ruled in favor of petitioners, remanding permit to IDEM on three key issues, including BACT for the reheat furnace and lead emissions from the EAF. Drafted motion to reconsider three issues. Prepared 69 pages of technical comments on revised draft PSD permit. Drafted second EAB appeal addressing lead emissions from the EAF and BACT for reheat furnace based on European experience with SCR/SNCR. Case settled. Permit was substantially improved. See In re: Steel Dynamics, Inc., PSD Appeal Nos. 99-4 & 99-5 (EAB June 22, 2000).  Assisted defendant urea manufacturer in Alaska in negotiations with USEPA to seek relief from penalties for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. Reviewed and evaluated regulatory files and monitoring data, prepared technical analysis demonstrating that permit limits were not violated, and participated in negotiations with EPA to dismiss action. Fines were substantially reduced and case closed.
 Assisted construction unions in challenging PSD permitting action for an Indiana grain mill.

Prepared technical comments on draft PSD permit and assisted counsel draft appeal of agency permit action to the Environmental Appeals Board challenging permit based on faulty BACT analyses for heaters and boilers and faulty permit conditions, among others. Case settled.
 As part of a consent decree settling a CEQA lawsuit, assisted neighbors of a large west coast port in negotiations with port authority to secure mitigation for air quality impacts. Prepared technical comments on mobile source air quality impacts and mitigation and negotiated a $9 million CEQA mitigation package. Represented neighbors on technical advisory committee established by port to implement the air quality mitigation program. Program successfully implemented.
 Assisted construction unions in challenging permitting action for a California hazardous waste incinerator. Prepared technical comments on draft permit, assisted counsel prepare appeal of EPA permit to the Environmental Appeals Board. Participated in settlement discussions on technical issues with applicant and EPA Region 9. Case settled. 346
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 17

 Assisted environmental group in challenging DTSC Negative Declaration on a hazardous waste treatment facility. Prepared technical comments on risk of upset, water, and health risks. Writ of mandamus issued.
 Assisted several neighborhood associations and cities impacted by quarries, asphalt plants, and cement plants in Alameda, Shasta, Sonoma, and Mendocino counties in obtaining mitigations for dust, air quality, public health, traffic, and noise impacts from facility operations and proposed expansions.
 For over 100 industrial facilities, commercial/campus, and redevelopment projects, developed the record in preparation for CEQA and NEPA lawsuits. Prepared technical comments on hazardous materials, solid wastes, public utilities, noise, worker safety, air quality, public health, water resources, water quality, traffic, and risk of upset sections of EIRs, EISs, FONSIs, initial studies, and negative declarations. Assisted counsel in drafting petitions and briefs and prepared declarations.
 For several large commercial development projects and airports, assisted applicant and counsel prepare defensible CEQA documents, respond to comments, and identify and evaluate "all feasible" mitigation to avoid CEQA challenges. This work included developing mitigation programs to reduce traffic-related air quality impacts based on energy conservation programs, solar, low-emission vehicles, alternative fuels, exhaust treatments, and transportation management associations.

SITE INVESTIGATION/REMEDIATION/CLOSURE
 Technical manager and principal engineer for characterization, remediation, and closure of waste management units at former Colorado oil shale plant. Constituents of concern included BTEX, As, 1,1,1-TCA, and TPH. Completed groundwater monitoring programs, site assessments, work plans, and closure plans for seven process water holding ponds, a refinery sewer system, and processed shale disposal area. Managed design and construction of groundwater treatment system and removal actions and obtained clean closure.  Principal engineer for characterization, remediation, and closure of process water ponds at a former lanthanide processing plant in Colorado. Designed and implemented groundwater monitoring program and site assessments and prepared closure plan.  Advised the city of Sacramento on redevelopment of two former railyards. Reviewed work plans, site investigations, risk assessment, RAPS, RI/FSs, and CEQA documents.

Participated in the development of mitigation strategies to protect construction and utility workers and the public during remediation, redevelopment, and use of the site, including buffer zones, subslab venting, rail berm containment structure, and an environmental oversight plan.
347
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 18

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

Prepared summary reports.
 Technical oversight of characterization and remediation of a nitrate plume at an explosives manufacturing facility in Lincoln, CA. Provided interface between owners and consultants.

Reviewed site assessments, work plans, closure plans, and RI/FSs.  Consultant to owner of large western molybdenum mine proposed for NPL listing.

Participated in negotiations to scope out consent order and develop scope of work.

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

REGULATORY (PARTIAL LIST)
 In November 2021, researched and wrote 46 pages of comments on the IS/MND for the California Renewable Carbon Williams Production Facility on: (a) construction air quality impacts; (b) operational emissions; and (c) construction and operational health risks.  In November 2021, researched and wrote 11 pages of comments on the Final Supplemental Impact Report for the ExxonMobil Interim Trucking Phased Restart Project on: (a) crude oil truck NOx emissions; (b) tanker transport fire impacts; and (c) impacts of and mitigation for off-site accidental spills.
 In October 2021, researched and wrote 13 pages of technical comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Casa Diablo IV geothermal power plant on the proposed LDAR program.
348
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 19

 In June 2021, researched and wrote 26 pages of technical comments on IS/MND for the Regional San BioGeneration Facility on: (a) significant construction air quality impacts; (b) significant operational air quality impacts; and (d) cumulative impacts.  In May 2021, researched and wrote 64 pages of comments on the IS/MND for the Heber 1 Geothermal Repower Project on: (a) construction air quality impacts; (b) operational air quality impacts; (c) cumulative air quality impacts; (d) health impacts; (d) Valley Fever; (e) hazard and hazardous materials; (f) geologic impacts; and (g) impacts of extended operational lifetime.
 In February 2021, researched and wrote 41 pages of technical comment on the IS/MND for the Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project on: (a) risk of upset impacts; (b) tanker truck accidents; (c) valley fever impacts; (d) construction and operational air quality impacts; (d) water use; and (e) cumulative impacts.
 In December 2020, researched and wrote 23 pages of comments on the Draft Supplemental Recirculated Environmental Impact Report for Revisions to the Kern County Zoning Ordinance – 2020 A, Focused on Oil and Gas Local Permitting on: (a) significant and unmitigated construction emissions; (b) significant and unmitigated operational emissions; (c) public health and biological impacts of criteria pollutants emissions and ozone; (d) offsets not valid CEQA mitigation.
 In October and December 2020, researched and wrote 46 pages of comments on underestimated and unsupported construction emissions, omitted construction emission sources, failure to consider unique site geotechnical conditions; revised construction emissions; significant construction and operational GHG emissions; GHG mitigation; construction and operational health risks; risk of upset; and cumulative impacts for a facility proposed to upgrade landfill gas to pipeline quality natural gas.  In October and November 2020, researched and wrote 37 pages of comments on significant construction impacts, significant operational VOC emissions, and significant public health impacts of new internal floating roof storage tanks at a marine terminal at the Port of Long Beach.
 In September to November 2020, review proposed permit amendment to add HCN emissions from the FCCU to Title V permit for a Houston Refinery and research and write report on methods to measure HCN from FCCUs in situ and remotely.  In September and October 2020, researched and wrote 14 pages of comments on proposed Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) program for controlling VOC emissions from a geothermal power plant.
 In August to October 2020, researched and wrote comments on grid-based impacts of San Francisco’s proposed building code mandating that new construction be all electric. 349
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 20

 In July and August 2020, researched and wrote comments on groundwater impacts of sea level rise for Final SEIR on crude oil trucking proposal.  In June to August 2020, researched and wrote 69 pages of comments on inadequate project description, construction impacts, operational air quality impacts, cumulative air quality impacts, public health impacts, valley fever, hazards, geologic impacts, water use, CEC licensing, and extended lifetime impacts for the repower of a geothermal power plant in Imperial County.
 In June 2020, review revised quarry reclamation plan and draft 27 pages of comments on proposed modification.
 In June and July 2020, researched and wrote 23 pages of comments on cement terminal at Port of Stockton on construction impacts, emission baseline, operational emissions, and greenhouse gas mitigation.
 In May to June 2020, review reclamation plan amendment for quarry and research and write 17 page report on hydrology and water quality impacts of proposed amendment.  In May 2020, researched and wrote 10 pages of comments on FEIR for a new apartment project in Contra Costa County on GHG emissions from vegetation removal, mobile sources, and water use and mitigation for same.
 In March/April 2020, researched and wrote 50 pages of comments on IS/MND for battery energy storage project in San Jose (Hummingbird) on inadequate project description, criteria pollutant and GHG emissions, significant and unmitigated energy impacts, cumulative impacts, construction impacts, public health impacts from BESS accidents, and battery handling and transportation accidents. Wrote 15 pages of responses to comments on vendor specifications, battery composition, cumulative impacts, construction impacts, fire control methods, and battery accidents.
 In April 2020, researched and wrote 47 pages of comments on IS/MND for data center in Santa Clara (SV1) on operational NOx emissions; out-of-district emissions; interbasin pollutant transport; omitted emission sources; GHG compliance with plans, policies and regulations; indirect GHG emissions; air quality impacts; construction emissions; cumulative impacts; and risk of upset from battery accidents.
 In March 2020, researched and wrote 30 pages of comments on IS/MND for data center in San Jose (Hummingbird) on operational GHG and criteria pollutant emissions, cumulative impacts, and public health risks. Research and write responses to comments.  In February-March 2020, researched and wrote 30 pages on an IS/MND for a data center in San Jose (Stack) on operational NOx and GHG emissions, cumulative impacts, heath risks, and odor.
350
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 21

 In February 2020, researched and wrote 33 pages of comments on Initial Study for a battery storage facility in Ventura County (Orni) on criteria pollutant and GHG emissions, worker and public health impacts, cumulative impacts, valley fever, and consistency with general plan.
 In February 2020, researched and wrote 20 pages of comments on valley fever in response to applicant’s global response to comments on Valley Fever for a wind project in San Diego County.
 In January 2020, researched and wrote 32 pages of comments on the Orni battery storage facility (BESS) on incomplete project description, cumulative GHG and NOx impacts, BESS accidents, and health impacts, including soil contamination and valley fever.  In January 2020, research and wrote 41 pages of comments on the DEIR for the NuStar Port of Stockton Liquid Bulk Terminal on operational emission calculations, significant NOx emissions, significant GHG emissions. GHG mitigation, and cumulative impacts.  In December 2019, researched and wrote 3 pages of comments on the Silverstrand Grid battery storage facility on greenhouse gas emissions.
 In December 2019, researched and wrote 15 pages of comments on the Initial Study for the K2 Pure – Chlorine Rail Transportation Curtailment Project, including on air quality baseline, project description, emissions, cancer risks, risk of upset.  In November 2019, reviewed agency files and researched and wrote 42 pages of comments on the Belridge Solar Project on compliance with local zoning ordinances, water quality impacts, air quality impacts, and worker and public health impacts due to soil contamination and valley fever.
 In October 2019, researched and wrote 49 pages of comments on IS/MND for data center in Santa Clara, CA on operational criteria pollutants (mobile sources, off-site electricity generation, emergency generators), ambient air quality impacts, greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation, and cumulative impacts.
 In October 2019, researched and wrote 9 pages of comments on the Application, Statement of Basis and draft Permit to Construct and Temporary Permit to Operate for proposed changes at the Paramount Refinery to facilitate refining of biomass-based feedstock to produce renewable fuels.
 In September 2019, reviewed City of Sunnyvale’s file on Google’s proposed Central Utility Plant and researched and wrote 34 pages of comments on construction and operational air quality impacts, cumulative impacts, and battery fire and explosion impacts. In October 2019, researched and wrote 15 pages of responses to comments. 351
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 22

 In August 2019, research and wrote 37 pages of comments on the DSEIR for the Le Conte Battery Energy Storage System on GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous material impacts, and health impacts.
 In August 2019, researched and wrote 38 pages of comments on IS/MND for the Hanford- Lakeside Dairy digester Project, Kings County, on project description (piecemealing), cumulative impacts, construction impacts, air quality impacts, valley fever and risk of upset.  In July 2019, researched and wrote 48 pages of comments on IS/MND for the Five Points Pipeline Dairy Digester Cluster Project, including on air quality, cumulative impacts, worker and public health impacts (including on pesticide-contaminated soils), Valley Fever, construction air quality impacts, and risk of upset.
 In June 2019, researched and wrote 15 pages of responses to comments on IS/MND for SV1 Data Center, including operational NOx emissions, air quality analyses, construction emissions, battery hazards, and mitigation plans for noise, vibration, risk management, storm water pollution, and emergency response and evacuation plans.  In June 2019, researched and wrote 30 pages of comments on DEIR for the Humboldt Wind Energy Project on fire and aesthetic impacts of transmission line, construction air quality impacts and mitigation, and greenhouse gas emissions.
 In May 2019, researched and wrote 25 pages of comments on the DEIR for the ExxonMobil Interim Trucking for Santa Ynez Phased Restart Project on project description, baseline, and mitigation.
 In April 2019, researched and wrote a 16 page letter critiquing the adequacy of the FEIR for CalAm Desalination Project to support a Monterey County Combined Development Permit, consisting of a Use Permit, an Administrative Permit, and Design Approval for the Desalination Plant and Carmel Valley Pump Station.
 In April 2019, researched and wrote 22 pages of comments on DEIR for the Eco-Energy Liquid Bulk Terminal at the Port of Stockton on emissions, air quality impact mitigation, and health risk assessment.
 In March 2019, researched and wrote 43 pages of comments on DEIR for Contanda Renewable Diesel Bulk Liquid Terminal at the Port of Stockton on operational emissions, air quality impacts and mitigation and health risks.
 In February 2019, researched and wrote 36 pages of comments on general cumulative impacts, air quality, accidents, and valley fever for IS/MND for biogas cluster project in Kings County.
 In January 2019, researched and wrote 30 pages of comments on air quality and valley fever for IS/MND for energy storage facility in Kings County. 352
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 23

 In December 2018, researched and wrote 11 pages of comments on air quality for IS/MND for biomass gasification facility in Madera County.
 In December 2018, researched and wrote 10 pages of responses to comments on IS/MND for a wind energy project in Riverside County.
 In December 2018, researched and wrote 12 pages of responses to comments on IS/MND for a large Safeway fueling station in Petaluma. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to require an EIR.
 In November 2018, researched and wrote 30 pages of comments on IS/MND on wind energy project in Riverside County on construction health risks, odor impacts, waste disposal, transportation, construction emissions and mitigation and Valley Fever.  In November 2018, researched and wrote 32 pages of comments on the DEIR for a solar energy generation and storage project in San Bernardino County on hazards, health risks, odor, construction emissions and mitigation, and Valley Fever.  In September 2018, researched and wrote 36 pages of comments on the FEIR for the Newland Sierra Project including on greenhouse gas emissions, construction emissions, and cumulative impacts.
 In August 2018, researched and wrote 20 pages of comments on the health risk assessment in the IS/MND for a large Safeway fueling station in Petaluma.  In August 2018, researched and wrote responses to comments on DEIR for the Newland Sierra Project, San Diego County on greenhouse gas emissions, construction emissions, odor, and Valley Fever.
 In July/August 2018, researched and wrote 12 pages of comments on DEIR for proposed Doheny Desal Project, on GHG, criteria pollutant, and TAC emissions and public health impacts during construction and indirect emissions during operation.  In June 2018, researched and wrote 12 pages of technical comments rebutting NDDH responses to comments on Meridian Davis Refinery.
 In April 2018, researched and wrote 26 pages of comments on greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation as proposed in the San Diego County Climate Action Plan.  In April 2018, researched and wrote 24 pages of comments on the FEIR for Monterey County water supply project, including GHG mitigation, air quality impacts and mitigation, and Valley Fever.
 In March-June 2018, researched and wrote 37 pages of comments on the IS/MND for the 2305 Mission College Boulevard Data Center, Santa Clara, California and responded to responses to comments.
353
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 24

 In March 2018, researched and wrote 40 pages of comments on the IS/MND for the Diablo Energy Storage Facility in Pittsburg, California.
 In March 2018, researched and wrote 19 pages of comments on Infill Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Legacy@Livermore Project on CalEEMod emission calculations, including NOx and PM10 and construction health risk assessment, including Valley Fever.
 In January 2018, researched and wrote 28 pages of comments on draft Permit to Construct for the Davis Refinery Project, North Dakota, as a minor source of criteria pollutants and HAPs.  In December 2017, researched and wrote 19 pages of comments on DEIR for the Rialto Bioenergy Facility, Rialto, California.
 In November and December 2017, researched and wrote 6 pages of comments on the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District’s Preliminary Determination if Compliance (PDOC) for Mission Rock Energy Center.
 In November 2017, researched and wrote 11 pages of comments on control technology evaluation for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry Residual Risk and Technology Review.  In September and November 2017, prepared comments on revised Negative Declaration for Delicato Winery in San Joaquin County, California.
 In October and November 2017, researched and wrote comments on North City Project Pure Water San Diego Program DEIR/DEIS to reclaim wastewater for municipal use.  In August 2017, reviewed DEIR on a new residential community in eastern San Diego County (Newland Sierra) and research and wrote 60 pages of comments on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and health impacts, including Valley Fever.  In August 2017, reviewed responses to comments on Part 70 operating permit for IGP Methanol’s Gulf Coast Methanol Complex, near Myrtle Grove, Louisiana, and researched and wrote comments on metallic HAP issues.
 In July 2017, reviewed the FEIS for an expansion of the Port of Gulfport and researched and wrote 10 pages of comments on air quality and public health.  In June 2017, reviewed and prepared technical report on an Application for a synthetic minor source construction permit for a new Refinery in North Dakota.  In June 2017, reviewed responses to NPCA and other comments on the BP Cherry Point Refinery modifications and assisted counsel in evaluating issues to appeal, including GHG BACT, coker heater SCR cost effectiveness analysis, and SO2 BACT. 354
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 25

 In June 2017, reviewed Part 70 Operating Permit Renewal/Modification for the Noranda Alumina LC/Gramercy Holdings I, LLC alumina processing plant, St. James, Louisiana, and prepared comments on HAP emissions from bauxite feedstock.  In May and June 2017, reviewed FEIR on Tesoro Integration Project and prepared responses to comments on the DEIR.
 In May 2017, prepared comments on tank VOC and HAP emissions from Tesoro Integration Project, based on real time monitoring at the Tesoro and other refineries in the SCAQMD.  In April 2017, prepared comments on Negative Declaration for Delicato Winery in San Joaquin County, California.
 In March 2017, reviewed Negative Declaration for Ellmore geothermal facility in Imperial County, California and prepared summary of issues.
 In March 2017, prepared response to Phillips 66 Company’s Appeal of the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission’s Decision Denying the Rail Spur Extension Project Proposed for the Santa Maria Refinery.
 In February 2017, researched and wrote comments on Kalama draft Title V permit for 10,000 MT/day methanol production and marine export facility in Kalama, Washington.  In January 2017, researched and wrote 51 pages of comments on proposed Title V and PSD permits for the St. James Methanol Plant, St. James Louisiana, on BACT and enforceability of permit conditions.
 In December 2016, researched and wrote comments on draft Title V Permit for Yuhuang Chemical Inc. Methanol Plant, St. James, Louisiana, responding to EPA Order addressing enforceability issues.
 In November 2016, researched and wrote comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the AES Battery Energy Storage Facility, Long Beach, CA.  In November 2016, researched and wrote comments on Campo Verde Battery Energy Storage System Draft Environmental Impact Report.
 In October 2016, researched and wrote comments on Title V Permit for NuStar Terminal Operations Partnership L.P, Stockton, CA.
 In October 2016, prepared expert report, Technical Assessment of Achieving the 40 CFR Part 423 Zero Discharge Standard for Bottom Ash Transport Water at the Belle River Power Plant, East China, Michigan. Reported resulted in a 2 year reduction in compliance date for elimination of bottom ash transport water. 1/30/17 DEQ Letter.  In September 2016, researched and wrote comments on Proposed Title V Permit and Environmental Assessment Statement, Yuhuang Chemical Inc. Methanol Plant, St. James, Louisiana.
355
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 26

 In September 2016, researched and wrote response to “Further Rebuttal in Support of Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-1, Denying Use Permit Application 12PLN- 00063 and Declining to Certify Final Environmental Impact Report for the Valero Benicia Crude-by-Rail Project.
 In August 2016, reviewed and prepared comments on manuscript: Hutton et al., Freshwater Flows to the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary over Nine Decades: Trends Evaluation.  In August/September 2016, researched and wrote comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Chevron Long Wharf Maintenance and Efficiency Project.  In July 2016, researched and wrote comments on the Ventura County APCD Preliminary Determination of Compliance and the California Energy Commission Revised Preliminary Staff Assessment for the Puente Power Project.
 In June 2016, researched and wrote comments on an Ordinance (1) Amending the Oakland Municipal Code to Prohibit the Storage and Handling of Coal and Coke at Bulk Material Facilities or Terminals Throughout the City of Oakland and (2) Adopting CEQA Exemption Findings and supporting technical reports. Council approved Ordinance on an 8 to 0 vote on June 27, 2016.
 In May 2016, researched and wrote comments on Draft Title V Permit and Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Tesoro Los Angeles Refinery Integration and Compliance Project.
 In March 2016, researched and wrote comments on Valero’s Appeal of Planning Commission’s Denial of Valero Crude-by-Rail Project.
 In February 2016, researched and wrote comments on Final Environmental Impact Report, Santa Maria Rail Spur Project.
 In February 2016, researched and wrote comments on Final Environmental Impact Report, Valero Benicia Crude by Rail Project.
 In January 2016, researched and wrote comments on Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.  In November 2015, researched and wrote comments on Final Environmental Impact Report for Revisions to the Kern County Zoning Ordinance – 2015(C) (Focused on Oil and Gas Local Permitting), November 2015.
 In October 2015, researched and wrote comments on Revised Draft Environmental Report, Valero Benicia Crude by Rail Project.
 In September 2015, prepared report, “Environmental, Health and Safety Impacts of the Proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, and presented oral testimony on September 21, 2015 before Oakland City Council on behalf of the Sierra Club. 356
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 27

 In September 2015, researched and wrote comments on revisions to two chapters of EPA’s Air Pollution Control Cost Manual: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0341.  In June 2015, researched and wrote comments on DEIR for the CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project.
 In April 2015, researched and wrote comments on proposed Title V Operating Permit Revision and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Arizona Public Service’s Ocotillo Power Plant Modernization Project (5 GE LMS100 105-MW simple cycle turbines operated as peakers), in Tempe, Arizona; Final permit appealed to EAB.  In March 2015, researched and wrote “Comments on Proposed Title V Air Permit, Yuhuang Chemical Inc. Methanol Plant, St. James, Louisiana”. Client filed petition objecting to the permit. EPA granted majority of issues. In the Matter of Yuhuang Chemical Inc. Methanol Plant, St. James Parish, Louisiana, Permit No. 2560-00295-V0, Issued by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Petition No. VI-2015-03, Order Responding to the Petitioners’ Request for Objection to the Issuance of a Title V Operating Permit, September 1, 2016.
 In February 2015, prepared compilation of BACT cost effectiveness values in support of comments on draft PSD Permit for Bonanza Power Project.  In January 2015, prepared cost effectiveness analysis for SCR for a 500-MW coal fire power plant, to address unpermitted upgrades in 2000.
 In January 2015, researched and wrote comments on Revised Final Environmental Impact Report for the Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project. Communities for a Better Environment et al. v. Contra Costa County et al. Contra Costa County (Superior Court, Contra Costa County, Case No. MSN15-0301, December 1, 2016).
 In December 2014, researched and wrote “Report on Bakersfield Crude Terminal Permits to Operate.” In response, the U.S. EPA cited the Terminal for 10 violations of the Clean Air Act. The Fifth Appellate District Court upheld the finding in this report in CBE et al v. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and Bakersfield Crude Terminal LLC et al, Super. Ct. No. 284013, June 23, 2017.
 In December 2014, researched and wrote comments on Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project.
 In November 2014, researched and wrote comments on Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for Phillips 66 Rail Spur Extension Project and Crude Unloading Project, Santa Maria, CA to allow the import of tar sands crudes.
 In November 2014, researched and wrote comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for Phillips 66 Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Project, responding to the California Supreme Court 357
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 28

Decision, Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310.
 In November 2014, researched and wrote comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Tesoro Avon Marine Oil Terminal Lease Consideration.  In October 2014, prepared: “Report on Hydrogen Cyanide Emissions from Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units”, pursuant to the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards, 79 FR 36880.
 In October 2014, researched and wrote technical comments on Final Environmental Impact Reports for Alon Bakersfield Crude Flexibility Project to build a rail terminal to allow the import/export of tar sands and Bakken crude oils and to upgrade an existing refinery to allow it to process a wide range of crudes.
 In October 2014, researched and wrote technical comments on the Title V Permit Renewal and three De Minimus Significant Revisions for the Tesoro Logistics Marine Terminal in the SCAQMD.
 In September 2014, researched and wrote technical comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Valero Crude by Rail Project.
 In August 2014, for EPA Region 6, prepared technical report on costing methods for upgrades to existing scrubbers at coal-fired power plants.  In July 2014, researched and wrote technical comments on Draft Final Environmental Impact Reports for Alon Bakersfield Crude Flexibility Project to build a rail terminal to allow the import/export of tar sands and Bakken crude oils and to upgrade an existing refinery to allow it to process a wide range of crudes.
 In June 2014, researched and wrote technical report on Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration for the Tesoro Logistics Storage Tank Replacement and Modification Project.  In May 2014, researched and wrote technical comments on Intent to Approve a new refinery and petroleum transloading operation in Utah.
 In March and April 2014, prepared declarations on air permits issued for two crude-by-rail terminals in California, modified to switch from importing ethanol to importing Bakken crude oils by rail and transferring to tanker cars. Permits were issued without undergoing CEQA review. One permit was upheld by the San Francisco Superior Court as statute of limitations had run. The Sacramento Air Quality Management District withdrew the second one due to failure to require BACT and conduct CEQA review.  In March 2014, researched and wrote technical report on Negative Declaration for a proposed modification of the air permit for a bulk petroleum and storage terminal to the allow the import of tar sands and Bakken crude oil by rail and its export by barge, under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
358
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 29

 In February 2014, researched and wrote technical report on proposed modification of air permit for midwest refinery upgrade/expansion to process tar sands crudes.  In January 2014, prepared cost estimates to capture, transport, and use CO2 in enhanced oil recovery, from the Freeport LNG project based on both Selexol and Amine systems.  In January 2014, researched and wrote technical report on Draft Environmental Impact Report for Phillips 66 Rail Spur Extension Project, Santa Maria, CA. Comments addressed project description (piecemealing, crude slate), risk of upset analyses, mitigation measures, alternative analyses and cumulative impacts.
 In November 2013, researched and wrote technical report on the Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project, Rodeo, CA. Comments addressed project description (piecemealing, crude slate) and air quality impacts.
 In September 2013, researched and wrote technical report on the Draft Authority to Construct Permit for the Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project Environmental Impact Report and Declaration in Support of Appeal and Petition for Stay, U.S. Department of the Interior, Board of Land Appeals, Appeal of Decision Record for the Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project.
 In September 2013, researched and wrote technical report on Effluent Limitation Guidelines for Best Available Technology Economically Available (BAT) for Bottom Ash Transport Waters from Coal-Fired Power Plants in the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category.
 In July 2013, researched and wrote technical report on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Valero Crude by Rail Project, Benicia, California, Use Permit Application 12PLN-00063.
 In July 2013, researched and wrote technical report on fugitive particulate matter emissions from coal train staging at the proposed Coyote Island Terminal, Oregon, for draft Permit No. 25-0015-ST-01.
 In July 2013, researched and wrote technical comments on air quality impacts of the Finger Lakes LPG Storage Facility as reported in various Environmental Impact Statements.  In July 2013, researched and wrote technical comments on proposed Greenhouse Gas PSD Permit for the Celanese Clear Lake Plant, including cost analysis of CO2 capture, transport, and sequestration.
 In June/July 2013, researched and wrote technical comments on proposed Draft PSD Preconstruction Permit for Greenhouse Gas Emission for the ExxonMobil Chemical Company Baytown Olefins Plant, including cost analysis of CO2 capture, transport, and sequestration.
359
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 30

 In June 2013, researched and wrote technical report on a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a new rail terminal at the Valero Benicia Refinery to import increased amounts of "North American" crudes. Comments addressed air quality impacts of refining increased amounts of tar sands crudes.
 In June 2013, researched and wrote technical report on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the California Ethanol and Power Imperial Valley 1 Project.  In May 2013, researched and wrote comments on draft PSD permit for major expansion of midwest refinery to process 100% tar sands crudes, including a complex netting analysis involving debottlenecking, piecemealing, and BACT analyses.  In April 2013, researched and wrote technical report on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the Keystone XL Pipeline on air quality impacts from refining increased amount of tar sands crudes at Refineries in PADD 3.  In October 2012, researched and wrote technical report on the Environmental Review for the Coyote Island Terminal Dock at the Port of Morrow on fugitive particulate matter emissions.  In October 2012-October 2014, review and evaluate Flint Hills West Application for an expansion/modification for increased (Texas, Eagle Ford Shale) crude processing and related modification, including netting and BACT analysis. Assist in settlement discussions.  In February 2012, researched and wrote comments on BART analysis in PA Regional Haze SIP, 77 FR 3984 (Jan. 26, 2012). On Sept. 29, 2015, a federal appeals court overturned the U.S. EPA’s approval of this plan, based in part on my comments, concluding “..we will vacate the 2014 Final Rule to the extent it approved Pennsylvania’s source-specific BART analysis and remand to the EPA for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.” Nat’l Parks Conservation Assoc. v. EPA, 3d Cir., No. 14-3147, 9/19/15.  Prepared cost analyses and comments on New York’s proposed BART determinations for NOx, SO2, and PM and EPA’s proposed approval of BART determinations for Danskammer Generating Station under New York Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and Federal Implementation Plan, 77 FR 51915 (August 28, 2012).
 Prepared cost analyses and comments on NOx BART determinations for Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for State of Nevada, 77 FR 23191 (April 18, 2012) and 77 FR 25660 (May 1, 2012).
 Prepared analyses of and comments on New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 77 FR 22392 (April 13, 2012).
 Researched and wrote comments on CASPR-BART emission equivalency and NOx and PM BART determinations in EPA proposed approval of State Implementation Plan for Pennsylvania Regional Haze Implementation Plan, 77 FR 3984 (January 26, 2012). 360
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 31

 Researched and wrote comments and statistical analyses on hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emission controls, monitoring, compliance methods, and the use of surrogates for acid gases, organic HAPs, and metallic HAPs for proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, 76 FR 24976 (May 3, 2011).
 Prepared cost analyses and comments on NOx BART determinations and emission reductions for proposed Federal Implementation Plan for Four Corners Power Plant, 75 FR 64221 (October 19, 2010).
 Prepared cost analyses and comments on NOx BART determinations for Colstrip Units 1- 4 for Montana State Implementation Plan and Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan, 77 FR 23988 (April 20, 2010).
 For EPA Region 8, prepared report: Revised BART Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Tail-End Selective Catalytic Reduction at the Basin Electric Power Cooperative Leland Olds Station Unit 2 Final Report, March 2011, in support of 76 FR 58570 (Sept. 21, 2011).  For EPA Region 6, prepared report: Revised BART Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Selective Catalytic Reduction at the Public Service Company of New Mexico San Juan Generating Station, November 2010, in support of 76 FR 52388 (Aug. 22, 2011).  For EPA Region 6, prepared report: Revised BART Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Flue Gas Desulfurization at Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units in Oklahoma: Sooner Units 1 & 2, Muskogee Units 4 & 5, Northeastern Units 3 &4, October 2010, in support of 76 FR 16168 (March 26, 2011). My work was upheld in: State of Oklahoma v. EPA, App. Case 12-9526 (10th Cri. July 19, 2013).
 Identified errors in N2O emission factors in the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, 40 CFR 98, and prepared technical analysis to support Petition for Rulemaking to Correct Emissions Factors in the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, filed with EPA on 10/28/10.
 Assisted interested parties develop input for and prepare comments on the Information Collection Request for Petroleum Refinery Sector NSPS and NESHAP Residual Risk and Technology Review, 75 FR 60107 (9/29/10).
 Technical reviewer of EPA's "Emission Estimation Protocol for Petroleum Refineries," posted for public comments on CHIEF on 12/23/09, prepared in response to the City of Houston's petition under the Data Quality Act (March 2010).  Researched and wrote comments on SCR cost effectiveness for EPA's Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Assessment of Anticipated Visibility Improvements at Surrounding Class I Areas and Cost Effectiveness of Best Available Retrofit Technology for Four Corners Power Plant and Navajo Generating Station, 74 FR 44313 (August 28, 2009). 361
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 32

 Researched and wrote comments on Proposed Rule for Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation and Processing Plants, 74 FR 25304 (May 27, 2009).  Prepared comments on draft PSD permit for major expansion of midwest refinery to process up to 100% tar sands crudes. Participated in development of monitoring and controls to mitigate impacts and in negotiating a Consent Decree to settle claims in 2008.  Reviewed and assisted interested parties prepare comments on proposed Kentucky air toxic regulations at 401 KAR 64:005, 64:010, 64:020, and 64:030 (June 2007).  Prepared comments on proposed Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Small Industrial-Commercial-Industrial Steam Generating Units, 70 FR 9706 (February 28, 2005).
 Prepared comments on Louisville Air Pollution Control District proposed Strategic Toxic Air Reduction regulations.
 Prepared comments and analysis of BAAQMD Regulation, Rule 11, Flare Monitoring at Petroleum Refineries.
 Prepared comments on Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electricity Utility Steam Generating Units (MACT standards for coal-fired power plants).
 Prepared Authority to Construct Permit for remediation of a large petroleum-contaminated site on the California Central Coast. Negotiated conditions with agencies and secured permits.
 Prepared Authority to Construct Permit for remediation of a former oil field on the California Central Coast. Participated in negotiations with agencies and secured permits.  Prepared and/or reviewed hundreds of environmental permits, including NPDES, UIC, Stormwater, Authority to Construct, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment New Source Review, Title V, and RCRA, among others.
 Participated in the development of the CARB document, Guidance for Power Plant Siting and Best Available Control Technology, including attending public workshops and filing technical comments.
 Performed data analyses in support of adoption of emergency power restoration standards by the California Public Utilities Commission for “major” power outages, where major is an outage that simultaneously affects 10% of the customer base.  Drafted portions of the Good Neighbor Ordinance to grant Contra Costa County greater authority over safety of local industry, particularly chemical plants and refineries. 362
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 33

 Participated in drafting BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 28, Pressure Relief Devices, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, draft rules and other technical materials, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and costs of methods to control PRV releases, and negotiations with staff.  Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 18, Valves and Connectors, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and cost of low-leak technology, and negotiations with staff.  Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 25, Pumps and Compressors, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules, and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and costs of low-leak and seal-less technology, and negotiations with staff.  Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 5, Storage of Organic Liquids, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules, and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and costs of controlling tank emissions, and presentation of testimony before the Board.
 Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 18, Valves and Connectors at Petroleum Refinery Complexes, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and costs of low-leak technology, and presentation of testimony before the Board.
 Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 22, Valves and Flanges at Chemical Plants, etc, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules, and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and costs of low-leak technology, and presentation of testimony before the Board.
 Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 25, Pump and Compressor Seals, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules, and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability of low-leak technology, and presentation of testimony before the Board.  Participated in the development of the BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5, Toxics, including participation in public workshops, review of staff proposals, and preparation of technical comments.
 Participated in the development of SCAQMD Rule 1402, Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources, and proposed amendments to Rule 1401, New Source Review of 363
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 34

Toxic Air Contaminants, in 1993, including review of staff proposals and preparation of technical comments on same.
 Participated in the development of the Sunnyvale Ordinance to Regulate the Storage, Use and Handling of Toxic Gas, which was designed to provide engineering controls for gases that are not otherwise regulated by the Uniform Fire Code.
 Participated in the drafting of the Statewide Water Quality Control Plans for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries, including participation in workshops, review of draft plans, preparation of technical comments on draft plans, and presentation of testimony before the SWRCB.
 Participated in developing Se permit effluent limitations for the five Bay Area refineries, including review of staff proposals, statistical analyses of Se effluent data, review of literature on aquatic toxicity of Se, preparation of technical comments on several staff proposals, and presentation of testimony before the Bay Area RWQCB.  Represented the California Department of Water Resources in the 1991 Bay-Delta Hearings before the State Water Resources Control Board, presenting sworn expert testimony with cross examination and rebuttal on a striped bass model developed by the California Department of Fish and Game.
 Represented the State Water Contractors in the 1987 Bay-Delta Hearings before the State Water Resources Control Board, presenting sworn expert testimony with cross examination and rebuttal on natural flows, historical salinity trends in San Francisco Bay, Delta outflow, and hydrodynamics of the South Bay.
 Represented interveners in the licensing of over 20 natural-gas-fired power plants and one coal gasification plant at the California Energy Commission and elsewhere. Reviewed and prepared technical comments on applications for certification, preliminary staff assessments, final staff assessments, preliminary determinations of compliance, final determinations of compliance, and prevention of significant deterioration permits in the areas of air quality, water supply, water quality, biology, public health, worker safety, transportation, site contamination, cooling systems, and hazardous materials. Presented written and oral testimony in evidentiary hearings with cross examination and rebuttal. Participated in technical workshops.
 Represented several parties in the proposed merger of San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison. Prepared independent technical analyses on health risks, air quality, and water quality. Presented written and oral testimony before the Public Utilities Commission administrative law judge with cross examination and rebuttal.  Represented a PRP in negotiations with local health and other agencies to establish impact of subsurface contamination on overlying residential properties. Reviewed health studies 364
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 35

prepared by agency consultants and worked with agencies and their consultants to evaluate health risks.

WATER QUALITY/RESOURCES
 Directed and participated in research on environmental impacts of energy development in the Colorado River Basin, including contamination of surface and subsurface waters and modeling of flow and chemical transport through fractured aquifers.  Played a major role in Northern California water resource planning studies since the early 1970s. Prepared portions of the Basin Plans for the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Delta basins including sections on water supply, water quality, beneficial uses, waste load allocation, and agricultural drainage. Developed water quality models for the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers.
 Conducted hundreds of studies over the past 40 years on Delta water supplies and the impacts of exports from the Delta on water quality and biological resources of the Central Valley, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and San Francisco Bay. Typical examples include:

1. Evaluate historical trends in salinity, temperature, and flow in San Francisco Bay and upstream rivers to determine impacts of water exports on the estuary;

2. Evaluate the role of exports and natural factors on the food web by exploring the relationship between salinity and primary productivity in San Francisco Bay, upstream rivers, and ocean;

3. Evaluate the effects of exports, other in-Delta, and upstream factors on the abundance of salmon and striped bass;

4. Review and critique agency fishery models that link water exports with the abundance of striped bass and salmon;

5. Develop a model based on GLMs to estimate the relative impact of exports, water facility operating variables, tidal phase, salinity, temperature, and other variables on the survival of salmon smolts as they migrate through the Delta;

6. Reconstruct the natural hydrology of the Central Valley using water balances, vegetation mapping, reservoir operation models to simulate flood basins, precipitation records, tree ring research, and historical research;

7. Evaluate the relationship between biological indicators of estuary health and down-estuary position of a salinity surrogate (X2);

8. Use real-time fisheries monitoring data to quantify impact of exports on fish migration;

9. Refine/develop statistical theory of autocorrelation and use to assess strength of relationships between biological and flow variables;
365
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 36

10. Collect, compile, and analyze water quality and toxicity data for surface waters in the Central Valley to assess the role of water quality in fishery declines;

11. Assess mitigation measures, including habitat restoration and changes in water project operation, to minimize fishery impacts;

12. Evaluate the impact of unscreened agricultural water diversions on abundance of larval fish;

13. Prepare and present testimony on the impacts of water resources development on Bay hydrodynamics, salinity, and temperature in water rights hearings;

14. Evaluate the impact of boat wakes on shallow water habitat, including interpretation of historical aerial photographs;

15. Evaluate the hydrodynamic and water quality impacts of converting Delta islands into reservoirs;

16. Use a hydrodynamic model to simulate the distribution of larval fish in a tidally influenced estuary;

17. Identify and evaluate non-export factors that may have contributed to fishery declines, including predation, shifts in oceanic conditions, aquatic toxicity from pesticides and mining wastes, salinity intrusion from channel dredging, loss of riparian and marsh habitat, sedimentation from upstream land alternations, and changes in dissolved oxygen, flow, and temperature below dams.

 Developed, directed, and participated in a broad-based research program on environmental issues and control technology for energy industries including petroleum, oil shale, coal mining, and coal slurry transport. Research included evaluation of air and water pollution, development of novel, low-cost technology to treat and dispose of wastes, and development and application of geohydrologic models to evaluate subsurface contamination from in-situ retorting. The program consisted of government and industry contracts and employed 45 technical and administrative personnel.
 Coordinated an industry task force established to investigate the occurrence, causes, and solutions for corrosion/erosion and mechanical/engineering failures in the waterside systems (e.g., condensers, steam generation equipment) of power plants. Corrosion/erosion failures caused by water and steam contamination that were investigated included waterside corrosion caused by poor microbiological treatment of cooling water, steam-side corrosion caused by ammonia-oxygen attack of copper alloys, stress-corrosion cracking of copper alloys in the air cooling sections of condensers, tube sheet leaks, oxygen in-leakage through condensers, volatilization of silica in boilers and carry over and deposition on turbine blades, and iron corrosion on boiler tube walls. Mechanical/engineering failures investigated included: steam impingement attack on the steam side of condenser tubes, tube-to-tube-sheet joint leakage, 366
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 37

flow-induced vibration, structural design problems, and mechanical failures due to stresses induced by shutdown, startup and cycling duty, among others. Worked with electric utility plant owners/operators, condenser and boiler vendors, and architect/engineers to collect data to document the occurrence of and causes for these problems, prepared reports summarizing the investigations, and presented the results and participated on a committee of industry experts tasked with identifying solutions to prevent condenser failures.  Evaluated the cost effectiveness and technical feasibility of using dry cooling and parallel dry-wet cooling to reduce water demands of several large natural-gas fired power plants in California and Arizona.
 Designed and prepared cost estimates for several dry cooling systems (e.g., fin fan heat exchangers) used in chemical plants and refineries.
 Designed, evaluated, and costed several zero liquid discharge systems for power plants.  Evaluated the impact of agricultural and mining practices on surface water quality of Central Valley steams. Represented municipal water agencies on several federal and state advisory committees tasked with gathering and assessing relevant technical information, developing work plans, and providing oversight of technical work to investigate toxicity issues in the watershed.

AIR QUALITY/PUBLIC HEALTH
 Prepared or reviewed the air quality and public health sections of hundreds of EIRs and EISs on a wide range of industrial, commercial and residential projects.  Prepared or reviewed hundreds of NSR and PSD permits for a wide range of industrial facilities.
 Designed, implemented, and directed a 2-year-long community air quality monitoring program to assure that residents downwind of a petroleum-contaminated site were not impacted during remediation of petroleum-contaminated soils. The program included real- time monitoring of particulates, diesel exhaust, and BTEX and time integrated monitoring for over 100 chemicals.
 Designed, implemented, and directed a 5-year long source, industrial hygiene, and ambient monitoring program to characterize air emissions, employee exposure, and downwind environmental impacts of a first-generation shale oil plant. The program included stack monitoring of heaters, boilers, incinerators, sulfur recovery units, rock crushers, API separator vents, and wastewater pond fugitives for arsenic, cadmium, chlorine, chromium, mercury, 15 organic indicators (e.g., quinoline, pyrrole, benzo(a)pyrene, thiophene, benzene), sulfur gases, hydrogen cyanide, and ammonia. In many cases, new methods had to be developed or existing methods modified to accommodate the complex matrices of shale plant gases.
367
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 38

 Conducted investigations on the impact of diesel exhaust from truck traffic from a wide range of facilities including mines, large retail centers, light industrial uses, and sports facilities.

Conducted traffic surveys, continuously monitored diesel exhaust using an aethalometer, and prepared health risk assessments using resulting data.
 Conducted indoor air quality investigations to assess exposure to natural gas leaks, pesticides, molds and fungi, soil gas from subsurface contamination, and outgasing of carpets, drapes, furniture and construction materials. Prepared health risk assessments using collected data.  Prepared health risk assessments, emission inventories, air quality analyses, and assisted in the permitting of over 70 1 to 2 MW emergency diesel generators.  Prepare over 100 health risk assessments, endangerment assessments, and other health-based studies for a wide range of industrial facilities.
 Developed methods to monitor trace elements in gas streams, including a continuous real- time monitor based on the Zeeman atomic absorption spectrometer, to continuously measure mercury and other elements.
 Performed nuisance investigations (odor, noise, dust, smoke, indoor air quality, soil contamination) for businesses, industrial facilities, and residences located proximate to and downwind of pollution sources.

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

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

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

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

J.P. Fox, T.P. Rose, and T.L. Sawyer, Isotope Hydrology of a Spring-fed Waterfall in Fractured Volcanic Rock, 2007.
368
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 39

C.E. Lambert, E.D. Winegar, and Phyllis Fox, Ambient and Human Sources of Hydrogen Sulfide: An Explosive Topic, Air & Waste Management Association, June 2000, Salt Lake City, UT.

San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District and San Luis Obispo County Public Health Department, Community Monitoring Program, February 8, 1999.

The Bay Institute, From the Sierra to the Sea. The Ecological History of the San Francisco Bay- Delta Watershed, 1998.

J. Phyllis Fox, Well Interference Effects of HDPP’s Proposed Wellfield in the Victor Valley Water District, Prepared for the California Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE), October 12, 1998.

J. Phyllis Fox, Air Quality Impacts of Using CPVC Pipe in Indoor Residential Potable Water Systems, Report Prepared for California Pipe Trades Council, California Firefighters Association, and other trade associations, August 29, 1998.

J. Phyllis Fox and others, Authority to Construct Avila Beach Remediation Project, Prepared for Unocal Corporation and submitted to San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, June 1998.

J. Phyllis Fox and others, Authority to Construct Former Guadalupe Oil Field Remediation Project, Prepared for Unocal Corporation and submitted to San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, May 1998.

J. Phyllis Fox and Robert Sears, Health Risk Assessment for the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport Proposed Airport Development Program, Prepared for Plumbers & Steamfitters U.A. Local 342, December 15, 1997.

Levine-Fricke-Recon (Phyllis Fox and others), Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Work Plan for the Study Area Operable Unit, Former Solano County Sanitary Landfill, Benicia, California, Prepared for Granite Management Co. for submittal to DTSC, September 26, 1997.

Phyllis Fox and Jeff Miller, "Fathead Minnow Mortality in the Sacramento River," IEP Newsletter, v. 9, n. 3, 1996.

Jud Monroe, Phyllis Fox, Karen Levy, Robert Nuzum, Randy Bailey, Rod Fujita, and Charles Hanson, Habitat Restoration in Aquatic Ecosystems. A Review of the Scientific Literature Related to the Principles of Habitat Restoration, Part Two, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) Report, 1996.

Phyllis Fox and Elaine Archibald, Aquatic Toxicity and Pesticides in Surface Waters of the Central Valley, California Urban Water Agencies (CUWA) Report, September 1997.

Phyllis Fox and Alison Britton, Evaluation of the Relationship Between Biological Indicators and the Position of X2, CUWA Report, 1994.
369
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 40

Phyllis Fox and Alison Britton, Predictive Ability of the Striped Bass Model, WRINT DWR-206, 1992.

J. Phyllis Fox, An Historical Overview of Environmental Conditions at the North Canyon Area of the Former Solano County Sanitary Landfill, Report Prepared for Solano County Department of Environmental Management, 1991.

J. Phyllis Fox, An Historical Overview of Environmental Conditions at the East Canyon Area of the Former Solano County Sanitary Landfill, Report Prepared for Solano County Department of Environmental Management, 1991.

Phyllis Fox, Trip 2 Report, Environmental Monitoring Plan, Parachute Creek Shale Oil Program, Unocal Report, 1991.

J. P. Fox and others, "Long-Term Annual and Seasonal Trends in Surface Salinity of San Francisco Bay," Journal of Hydrology, v. 122, p. 93-117, 1991.

J. P. Fox and others, "Reply to Discussion by D.R. Helsel and E.D. Andrews on Trends in Freshwater Inflow to San Francisco Bay from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta," Water Resources Bulletin, v. 27, no. 2, 1991.

J. P. Fox and others, "Reply to Discussion by Philip B. Williams on Trends in Freshwater Inflow to San Francisco Bay from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta," Water Resources Bulletin, v. 27, no. 2, 1991.

J. P. Fox and others, "Trends in Freshwater Inflow to San Francisco Bay from the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta," Water Resources Bulletin, v. 26, no. 1, 1990.

J. P. Fox, "Water Development Increases Freshwater Flow to San Francisco Bay," SCWC Update, v. 4, no. 2, 1988.

J. P. Fox, Freshwater Inflow to San Francisco Bay Under Natural Conditions, State Water Contractors, Exhibit 262, 58 pp., 1987;
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/deltaflow/docs/exhi bits/ccwd/spprt_docs/ccwd_fox_1987a.pdf.

J. P. Fox, "The Distribution of Mercury During Simulated In-Situ Oil Shale Retorting," Environmental Science and Technology, v. 19, no. 4, pp. 316-322, 1985.

J. P. Fox, "El Mercurio en el Medio Ambiente: Aspectos Referentes al Peru," (Mercury in the Environment: Factors Relevant to Peru) Proceedings of Simposio Los Pesticidas y el Medio Ambiente," ONERN-CONCYTEC, Lima, Peru, April 25-27, 1984. (Also presented at Instituto Tecnologico Pesquero and Instituto del Mar del Peru.)
J. P. Fox, "Mercury, Fish, and the Peruvian Diet," Boletin de Investigacion, Instituto Tecnologico Pesquero, Lima, Peru, v. 2, no. 1, pp. 97-116, l984.
370
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 41

J. P. Fox, P. Persoff, A. Newton, and R. N. Heistand, "The Mobility of Organic Compounds in a Codisposal System," Proceedings of the Seventeenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1984.

P. Persoff and J. P. Fox, "Evaluation of Control Technology for Modified In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts," Proceedings of the Sixteenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1983.

J. P. Fox, Leaching of Oil Shale Solid Wastes: A Critical Review, University of Colorado Report, 245 pp., July 1983.

J. P. Fox, Source Monitoring for Unregulated Pollutants from the White River Oil Shale Project, VTN Consolidated Report, June 1983.

A. S. Newton, J. P. Fox, H. Villarreal, R. Raval, and W. Walker II, Organic Compounds in Coal Slurry Pipeline Waters, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-15121, 46 pp., Sept. 1982.

M. Goldstein et al., High Level Nuclear Waste Standards Analysis, Regulatory Framework Comparison, Battelle Memorial Institute Report No. BPMD/82/E515-06600/3, Sept. 1982.

J. P. Fox et al., Literature and Data Search of Water Resource Information of the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming Oil Shale Basins, Vols. 1-12, Bureau of Land Management, 1982.

A. T. Hodgson, M. J. Pollard, G. J. Harris, D. C. Girvin, J. P. Fox, and N. J. Brown, Mercury Mass Distribution During Laboratory and Simulated In-Situ Retorting, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-12908, 39 pp., Feb. 1982.

E. J. Peterson, A. V. Henicksman, J. P. Fox, J. A. O'Rourke, and P. Wagner, Assessment and Control of Water Contamination Associated with Shale Oil Extraction and Processing, Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-9084-PR, 54 pp., April 1982.

P. Persoff and J. P. Fox, Control Technology for In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-14468, 118 pp., Dec. 1982.

J. P. Fox, Codisposal Evaluation: Environmental Significance of Organic Compounds, Development Engineering Report, 104 pp., April 1982.

J. P. Fox, A Proposed Strategy for Developing an Environmental Water Monitoring Plan for the Paraho-Ute Project, VTN Consolidated Report, Sept. 1982.

J. P. Fox, D. C. Girvin, and A. T. Hodgson, "Trace Elements in Oil Shale Materials," Energy and Environmental Chemistry, Fossil Fuels, v.1, pp. 69-101, 1982.

M. Mehran, T. N. Narasimhan, and J. P. Fox, "Hydrogeologic Consequences of Modified In-situ Retorting Process, Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado," Proceedings of the Fourteenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1981 (LBL-12063).

U. S. DOE (J. P. Fox and others), Western Oil Shale Development: A Technology Assessment, v. 1-9, Pacific Northwest Laboratory Report PNL-3830, 1981. 371
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 42

J. P. Fox (ed), "Oil Shale Research," Chapter from the Energy and Environment Division Annual Report 1980, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11989, 82 pp., 1981 (author or co- author of four articles in report).

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

J. P. Fox, The Partitioning of Major, Minor, and Trace Elements during In-Situ Oil Shale Retorting, Ph.D. Dissertation, U. of Ca., Berkeley, also Report LBL-9062, 441 pp., 1980 (Diss.

Abst. Internat., v. 41, no. 7, 1981).

J.P. Fox, "Elemental Composition of Simulated In Situ Oil Shale Retort Water," Analysis of Waters Associated with Alternative Fuel Production, ASTM STP 720, L.P. Jackson and C.C.

Wright, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 101-128, 1981.

J. P. Fox, P. Persoff, P. Wagner, and E. J. Peterson, "Retort Abandonment -- Issues and Research Needs," in Oil Shale: the Environmental Challenges, K. K. Petersen (ed.), p. 133, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11197).

J. P. Fox and T. E. Phillips, "Wastewater Treatment in the Oil Shale Industry," in Oil Shale: the Environmental Challenges, K. K. Petersen (ed.), p. 253, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11214).

R. D. Giauque, J. P. Fox, J. W. Smith, and W. A. Robb, "Geochemical Studies of Two Cores from the Green River Oil Shale Formation," Transactions, American Geophysical Union, v. 61, no. 17, 1980.

J. P. Fox, "The Elemental Composition of Shale Oils," Abstracts of Papers, 179th National Meeting, ISBN 0-8412-0542-6, Abstract No. FUEL 17, 1980.

J. P. Fox and P. Persoff, "Spent Shale Grouting of Abandoned In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts," Proceedings of Second U.S. DOE Environmental Control Symposium, CONF-800334/1, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10744).

P. K. Mehta, P. Persoff, and J. P. Fox, "Hydraulic Cement Preparation from Lurgi Spent Shale," Proceedings of the Thirteenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11071).

F. E. Brinckman, K. L. Jewett, R. H. Fish, and J. P. Fox, "Speciation of Inorganic and Organoarsenic Compounds in Oil Shale Process Waters by HPLC Coupled with Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption (GFAA) Detectors," Abstracts of Papers, Div. of Geochemistry, Paper No. 20, Second Chemical Congress of the North American Continent, August 25-28, 1980, Las Vegas (1980).

J. P. Fox, D. E. Jackson, and R. H. Sakaji, "Potential Uses of Spent Shale in the Treatment of Oil Shale Retort Waters," Proceedings of the Thirteenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11072). 372
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 43

J. P. Fox, The Elemental Composition of Shale Oils, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL- 10745, 1980.

R. H. Fish, J. P. Fox, F. E. Brinckman, and K. L. Jewett, Fingerprinting Inorganic and Organoarsenic Compounds in Oil Shale Process Waters Using a Liquid Chromatograph Coupled with an Atomic Absorption Detector, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL- 11476, 1980.

National Academy of Sciences (J. P. Fox and others), Surface Mining of Non-Coal Minerals, Appendix II: Mining and Processing of Oil Shale and Tar Sands, 222 pp., 1980.

J. P. Fox, "Elemental Composition of Simulated In-Situ Oil Shale Retort Water," in Analysis of Waters Associated with Alternative Fuel Production, ASTM STP 720, L. P. Jackson and C. C.

Wright (eds.), American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 101-128, 1980.

R. D. Giauque, J. P. Fox, and J. W. Smith, Characterization of Two Core Holes from the Naval Oil Shale Reserve Number 1, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10809, 176 pp., December 1980.

B. M. Jones, R. H. Sakaji, J. P. Fox, and C. G. Daughton, "Removal of Contaminative Constituents from Retort Water: Difficulties with Biotreatment and Potential Applicability of Raw and Processed Shales," EPA/DOE Oil Shale Wastewater Treatability Workshop, December 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-12124).

J. P. Fox, Water-Related Impacts of In-Situ Oil Shale Processing, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-6300, 327 p., December 1980.

M. Mehran, T. N. Narasimhan, and J. P. Fox, An Investigation of Dewatering for the Modified In- Situ Retorting Process, Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11819, 105 p., October 1980.

J. P. Fox (ed.) "Oil Shale Research," Chapter from the Energy and Environment Division Annual Report 1979, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10486, 1980 (author or coauthor of eight articles).

E. Ossio and J. P. Fox, Anaerobic Biological Treatment of In-Situ Oil Shale Retort Water, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10481, March 1980.

J. P. Fox, F. H. Pearson, M. J. Kland, and P. Persoff, Hydrologic and Water Quality Effects and Controls for Surface and Underground Coal Mining -- State of Knowledge, Issues, and Research Needs, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11775, 1980.

D. C. Girvin, T. Hadeishi, and J. P. Fox, "Use of Zeeman Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy for the Measurement of Mercury in Oil Shale Offgas," Proceedings of the Oil Shale Symposium:

Sampling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA-600/9-80-022, March 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8888).
373
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 44

D. S. Farrier, J. P. Fox, and R. E. Poulson, "Interlaboratory, Multimethod Study of an In-Situ Produced Oil Shale Process Water," Proceedings of the Oil Shale Symposium: Sampling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA-600/9-80-022, March 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9002).

J. P. Fox, J. C. Evans, J. S. Fruchter, and T. R. Wildeman, "Interlaboratory Study of Elemental Abundances in Raw and Spent Oil Shales," Proceedings of the Oil Shale Symposium: Sampling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA-600/9-80-022, March 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8901).

J. P. Fox, "Retort Water Particulates," Proceedings of the Oil Shale Symposium: Sampling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA-600/9-80-022, March 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8829).

P. Persoff and J. P. Fox, "Control Strategies for In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts," Proceedings of the Twelfth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9040).

J. P. Fox and D. L. Jackson, "Potential Uses of Spent Shale in the Treatment of Oil Shale Retort Waters," Proceedings of the DOE Wastewater Workshop, Washington, D. C., June 14-15, 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9716).

J. P. Fox, K. K. Mason, and J. J. Duvall, "Partitioning of Major, Minor, and Trace Elements during Simulated In-Situ Oil Shale Retorting," Proceedings of the Twelfth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9030).

P. Persoff and J. P. Fox, Control Strategies for Abandoned In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8780, 106 pp., October 1979.

D. C. Girvin and J. P. Fox, On-Line Zeeman Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy for Mercury Analysis in Oil Shale Gases, Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA-600/7-80-130, 95 p., August 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9702).

J. P. Fox, Water Quality Effects of Leachates from an In-Situ Oil Shale Industry, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8997, 37 pp., April 1979.

J. P. Fox (ed.), "Oil Shale Research," Chapter from the Energy and Environment Division Annual Report 1978, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9857 August 1979 (author or coauthor of seven articles).

J. P. Fox, P. Persoff, M. M. Moody, and C. J. Sisemore, "A Strategy for the Abandonment of Modified In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts," Proceedings of the First U.S. DOE Environmental Control Symposium, CONF-781109, 1978 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-6855). 374
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 45

E. Ossio, J. P. Fox, J. F. Thomas, and R. E. Poulson, "Anaerobic Fermentation of Simulated In- Situ Oil Shale Retort Water," Division of Fuel Chemistry Preprints, v. 23, no. 2, p. 202-213, 1978 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-6855).

J. P. Fox, J. J. Duvall, R. D. McLaughlin, and R. E. Poulson, "Mercury Emissions from a Simulated In-Situ Oil Shale Retort," Proceedings of the Eleventh Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1978 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-7823).

J. P. Fox, R. D. McLaughlin, J. F. Thomas, and R. E. Poulson, "The Partitioning of As, Cd, Cu, Hg, Pb, and Zn during Simulated In-Situ Oil Shale Retorting," Proceedings of the Tenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1977.

Bechtel, Inc., Treatment and Disposal of Toxic Wastes, Report Prepared for Santa Ana Watershed Planning Agency, 1975.

Bay Valley Consultants, Water Quality Control Plan for Sacramento, Sacramento-San Joaquin and San Joaquin Basins, Parts I and II and Appendices A-E, 750 pp., 1974. 375
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 46

POST GRADUATE COURSES
(Partial)

S-Plus Data Analysis, MathSoft, 6/94.

Air Pollutant Emission Calculations, UC Berkeley Extension, 6-7/94 Assessment, Control and Remediation of LNAPL Contaminated Sites, API and USEPA, 9/94 Pesticides in the TIE Process, SETAC, 6/96
Sulfate Minerals: Geochemistry, Crystallography, and Environmental Significance, Mineralogical Society of Am erica/Geochemical Society, 11/00.

Design of Gas Turbine Combined Cycle and Cogeneration Systems, Thermoflow, 12/00 Air-Cooled Steam Condensers and Dry- and Hybrid-Cooling Towers, Power-Gen, 12/01 Combustion Turbine Power Augmentation with Inlet Cooling and Wet Compression, Power-Gen , 12/01
CEQA Update, UC Berkeley Extension, 3/02
The Health Effects of Chemicals, Drugs, and Pollutants, UC Berkeley Extension, 4-5/02 Noise Exposure Assessment: Sampling Strategy and Data Acquisition, AIHA PDC 205, 6/02 Noise Exposure Measurement Instruments and Techniques, AIHA PDC 302, 6/02 Noise Control Engineering, AIHA PDC 432, 6/02
Optimizing Generation and Air Emissions, Power-Gen, 12/02 Utility Industry Issues, Power-Gen, 12/02
Multipollutant Emission Control, Coal-Gen, 8/03
Community Noise, AIHA PDC 104, 5/04
Cutting-Edge Topics in Noise and Hearing Conservation, AIHA 5/04 Selective Catalytic Reduction: From Planning to Operation, Power-Gen, 12/05 Improving the FGD Decision Process, Power-Gen, 12/05
E-Discovery, CEB, 6/06
McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, FGD Project Delay Factors, 8/10/06 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, What Mercury Technologies Are Available, 9/14/06 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, SCR Catalyst Choices, 10/12/06 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Particulate Choices for Low Sulfur Coal, 10/19/06 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Impact of PM2.5 on Power Plant Choices, 11/2/06 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Dry Scrubbers, 11/9/06
Cost Estimating and Tricks of the Trade – A Practical Approach, PDH P159, 11/19/06 Process Equipment Cost Estimating by Ratio & Proportion, PDH G127 11/19/06 Power Plant Air Quality Decisions, Power-Gen 11/06
McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, WE Energies Hg Control Update, 1/12/07 Negotiating Permit Conditions, EEUC, 1/21/07
BACT for Utilities, EEUC, 1/21/07
McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Chinese FGD/SCR Program & Impact on World, 2/1/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury Control Cost & Performance, 2/15/07 McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, Mercury CEMS, 4/12/07
376
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 47

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

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

Interest Rates, PDH P204, 3/9/12
377
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 48

Mechanics Liens, PDHOnline, 2/24/13.

Understanding Concerns with Dry Sorbent Injection as a Coal Plant Pollution Control, Webinar #874-567-839 by Cleanenergy.Org, March 4, 2013
Webinar: Coal-to-Gas Switching: What You Need to Know to Make the Investment, sponsored by PennWell Power Engineering Magazine, March 14, 2013. Available at:
https://event.webcasts.com/viewer/event.jsp?ei=1013472. 378

OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
65 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg, CA 94565
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Garrett Evans, City Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of a City Council Resolution Approving a Rate Increase Requested by Contra Costa Waste Service, Inc. for the Operation of the Recycling Center and Transfer Station
MEETING DATE: December 16, 2024

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Contra Costa Waste Service, Inc. (Operator) operates the Recycling Center and Transfer Station (RCTS) on Loveridge Road under an Exclusive Operating Agreement (Agreement) between the Operator and the City of Pittsburg. The Agreement requires that the Operator obtain City Council approval prior to modifying the authorized mixed waste rate charged at the RCTS. The Operator has requested a Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase of 3.41% effective January 1, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of this Resolution will have no fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund.

RECOMMENDATION
City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the rate increase requested by the Operator for operation of the RCTS, effective January 1, 2025.

BACKGROUND
The RCTS on Loveridge Road receives and processes municipal solid waste whilst separating recyclable raw materials to reduce overall waste from being landfilled in accordance with the City’s waste diversion requirements. The Agreement allows for the modification of the mixed-waste rate charged to customers following prior review and approval by the City Council.
379
On September 9, 2021, City Council approved a $16.25 incremental increase at $5.41 per year for three years for costs associated with new infrastructure, equipment and processing of municipal solid waste for the recovery of organic materials in accordance with State mandates under SB 1383 the Organic Waste Reductions law, as well as the increased cost for processing recyclables to meet the new strict near zero contaminate criteria.

This year, 2024, is the third and final year of this three-year incremental increase. The City Council also approved a CPI increase based on the All-Urban Consumers, San Francisco- Oakland-San Jose from August 2022 to August 2023, and allowed the City Manager to approve subsequent annual CPI requests as long as they were not to exceed 4%.

On October 1, 2024, the City received a letter from the Operator requesting a 3.41% CPI rate increase at the RCTS.

SUBCOMMITTEE FINDINGS
This item was presented to the Finance Management Subcommittee on November 15, 2024.

STAFF ANALYSIS
In 2016, Governor Edmund Brown signed into law SB 1383 to reduce emissions of short- lived climate pollutants, in particular methane emissions, by reducing the disposal of organic materials into landfills. The law seeks a reduction of organic waste disposal by 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025, and to divert edible food from landfill to food rescue organizations like food banks by at least 20% by 2025. The regulations to implement the law were finalized in November 2020.

The Operator is required to comply with the law. To meet these high diversion and regulatory requirements, the Operator has set forth a long-term Master Plan within its amended Land Use Permit which the Planning Commission approved on August 24, 2021.

The construction of a maintenance building to service the needs of the RCTS and MDRR, and a building to manage and process organic materials, a key requirement for compliance with the law, is currently underway in Pittsburg.

During periods of significant investment as described above, annual rate adjustments according to annual CPI help avoid large one-time increases in the rates in order to cover costs. Staff has reviewed the Operator’s financials and determined the increase is justified and reasonable. In addition, as shown on page 3 of Attachment 2, staff reviewed a list of rates charged at other transfer stations in the region. The Operator’s new rate requested is comparable to rates charged by other operators. The Bay Area average is $150.68 per ton and the new proposed rate of $147.25 is just below the average. Pittsburg ranks 6th of 11 Bay Area transfer stations in cost.

ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
Request letter dated October 1, 2024 from CCWS
Report Prepared By: Sara Bellafronte, Assistant to the City Manager 380
Resolution No. 24- Page 1 of 2 December 16, 2024

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURG
In the Matter Of:

Approving a Rate Increase Requested by )
Contra Costa Waste Services, Inc. for the ) RESOLUTION NO. 24- Operation of the Recycling Center and )
Transfer Station )
WHEREAS, Contra Costa Waste Service, Inc. (Operator) operates the Recycling Center and Transfer Station (RCTS) on Loveridge Road under an Exclusive Operating Agreement (Agreement) between the Operator and the City of Pittsburg; and WHEREAS, the RCTS, receives and processes municipal solid waste and separates recyclable raw materials to reduce overall waste from being landfilled in accordance with the City’s waste diversion requirements; and
WHEREAS, to meet high diversion and regulatory requirements of Senate Bill 1383, the Operator has set forth a long-term Master Plan within its amended Land Use Permit which the Planning Commission approved on August 24, 2021. As such, the construction of a maintenance building to service the needs of the RCTS and the City’s franchised hauler, Mount Diablo Resource Recovery, and a building to manage and process organic materials, a key requirement for compliance with SB 1383, is currently underway in Pittsburg; and WHEREAS, especially during periods of unfunded mandates and significant investment, consistent rate adjustments according to annual CPI help avoid large increases in the rates to recover costs; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement requires that the Operator obtain City Council approval prior to modifying the authorized mixed waste rate charged at the RCTS and the Operator has requested a CPI increase of 3.41% effective January 1, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Operator’s new rate requested is comparable to rates charged by other operators as the Bay Area average is $150.68 per ton and the new proposed rate of $147.25 is below the average, ranking the 6 th least expensive of eleven Bay Area transfer stations; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the Operator’s financials and determined the increase is justified and reasonable.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pittsburg hereby approves the rate increase requested by the Operator for the Operation of the RCTS.

381
Resolution No. 24- Page 2 of 2 December 16, 2024
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pittsburg at a regular meeting on the 16th day of December 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAINED:

ABSENT:
_____________________________
Jelani Killings, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Alice E. Evenson, City Clerk
382

4080 Mallard Drive, Concord, CA 94520 • Post Office Box 5397, Concord, CA 94524 (925) 682-9113 • www.mdrr.com • Printed on Recycled Paper

October 1, 2024

Mr. Garrett Evans VIA EMAIL
City Manager
City of Pittsburg
65 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg, CA 94565
RE: Request for CPI Rate adjustment at the Recycling Center & Transfer Station Dear Mr. Evans,

Contra Costa Waste Service, Inc., DBA Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery (collectively MDRR), respectfully requests consideration of a 3.41% CPI rate adjustment to our current tip fee at the Recycling Center & Transfer Station (RCTS). This adjustment is consistent with the 5-year rate adjustment strategy which was previously approved by the City Council in 2021 and would result in our tip fee adjusting to $147.25 per ton, from the current $142.50 per ton.

This proposed CPI rate adjustment has been determined using the San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward CPI-U Index from August 2022 to August 2023 as shown in Tab 1 of the attached Excel workbook file. The derived dollar amounts were then rounded to the nearest quarter t o facilitate change calculations. Applying the aforementioned methodology would result in the newly proposed adjusted rates as shown in Tab 2. For your convenience, we have also included a list of comparable rates for other transfer stations as shown in Tab 3 which shows the Bay Area average at $148.74.

As is customary and keeping in line with prior approvals, we intend that these newly adjusted rates would become effective as of January 1 st, 2025, provided we have received approval from the City Manager (prior Council approval allows for the City Manager to approve adjustments up to a 4% CPI).

We sincerely value our long -term partnership with the City and appreciate the ongoing support of our diversion programs and strategies, as well as our shared vision for environmental best management practices. As always please do not 383
Letter to Garrett Evans 10/01/2024
RE: Request for CPI Rate Adjustment at RCTS Page 2 of 2 4080 Mallard Drive, Concord, CA 94520 • Post Office Box 5397, Concord, CA 94524 (925) 682-9113 • www.mdrr.com • Printed on Recycled Paper

hesitate to contact either Sarah Davis or myself should you have any questions or need additional information regarding this request.

Sincerely,

Salvatore N. Evola
Executive Director, External Affairs

Enc: Excel Workbook File:

Tab / Attach 1: Rate Sheet (current & new)
Tab / Attach 2: CPI Table
Tab / Attach 3: Bay Area Comparable Gate Rates

CC: Sara Bellafronte - City of Pittsburg
Kish Rajan – CEO, Contra Costa Waste Service
Gary Lazdowski – COO, Contra Costa Waste Service
Patrick Dolim – CFO, Contra Costa Waste Service

384
Solid Waste Facility Location

Compacted
Rate Per Ton Operator
Minimum
Fee
1 Fremont Transfer Station Fremont 118.62$ BLT 55.00$ 2 Contra Costa Trasfer and Recovery Martinez 125.50$ Republic Services 37.50$ 3 Central Disposal Site & Transfer Station Petaluma 135.00$ Republic Services 33.00$ 4 Shoreway Environmental Center San Carlos 136.00$ Rethink Waste 54.00$ 5 Golden Bear Richmond 136.80$ Republic Services 36.05$ 6 RCTS (Proposed as of January 1, 2025 ) Pittsburg 147.25$ MDRR / Contra Costa Waste Service 45.00$ 7 Davis St. Transfer Station San Leandro 145.47$
Waste Management 37.20$
8 Berkeley Transfer Station Berkeley 154.00$ City of Berkeley 42.00$ 9 Pleasanton Transfer Station Pleasanton 168.93$ Pleasanton Garbage Service 33.78$ 10 Marin Resource Recovery Center Marin 170.00$ Marin Sanitary Service 50.00$ 11 Recology San Francisco San Francisco 219.86$ Recology 50.00$ 150.68$ Bay Area Average
385

Standard Rates
Current
Pricing
Pricing Effective January
1, 2025
Minimum Charge $ 43.50 $ 45.00 Minimum Cubic Yard Charge $ 38.75 $ 40.00 Per Yard Bulk & Compacted Loads (Mixed Waste Rate) $ 142.50 $ 147.25 Per Ton

Appliances and Misc.

Refrigerators, A.C. Units $ 75.25 $ 77.75 Each Washers & Stoves $ 75.25 $ 77.75 Each All Other Appliances $ 55.25 $ 57.25 Each Small Size Propane Tanks (5 Gallon) $ 13.75 $ 14.25 Each Medium Size Propane Tanks (6-10 Gallon) $ 22.50 $ 23.25 Each Large Size Propane Tanks ( < 10 Gallon) $ 55.25 $ 57.25 Each Mattress or Box Spring - Twin Size $ 32.50 $ 33.50 Each Larger Than Twin Size $ 47.75 $ 49.50 Each

Construction & Demolition (C&D) Material
Minimum Charge $ 43.50 $ 45.00 Minimum Cubic Yard Charge $ 38.75 $ 40.00 Per Yard Bulk & Compacted Loads $ 142.50 $ 147.25 Per Ton

Wood/Green
Clean Wood Minimum Charge $ 43.50 $ 45.00 Minimum Clean Wood Loads $ 142.50 $ 147.25 Per Ton Clean Green Minimum Charge $ 43.50 $ 45.00 Minimum Clean Green Loads $ 142.50 $ 147.25 Per Ton Wood Stumps Larger Than 24 Inches $ 142.50 $ 147.25 Per Ton

Treated Wood Waste
Treated Wood Waste (TWW) $ 221.25 $ 228.75 Per Ton Mixed Treated Wood Waste $ 252.75 $ 261.25 Per Ton

Electronic Waste
Cell Phones $ 8.75 $ 9.00 Each VCRs Printers Small Items $ 13.75 $ 14.25 Each Medium e-waste $ 23.00 $ 23.75 Each Microwaves $ 32.50 $ 33.50 Each TVs & CRTs $ 55.25 $ 57.25 Each Copy Machines Large Items Special Handling $ 172.00 $ 177.75 & Up 386

Tires
Wheel Attachments $ 7.25 $ 7.50 Each Cars Tires $ 13.75 $ 14.25 Each Truck Tires $ 32.50 $ 33.50 Each Tractor Tires $ 88.75 $ 91.75 Each Motorcycle Tires $ 13.75 $ 14.25 Each Car Tires with Rims Attached $ 21.00 $ 21.75 Each Truck Tires with Rims Attached $ 39.75 $ 41.00 Each Tractors with Rims Attached $ 96.00 $ 99.25 Each *rounded to nearest 25 cents
We do NOT accept Hazardous, Infectious or Liquid Waste. All loads must be covered and will be inspected before disposal as provided by State Law. R.C.T.S. reserves the right to reject any load. Cash, Local Business Check, Visa, Master Card, American Express & Discover cards are accepted. Thank you for your business. Contra Costa Waste Service, Inc.

387

OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
65 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg, CA 94565
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Garrett Evans, City Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of Pittsburg Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Thresholds to Evaluate Transportation Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Senate Bill 743), AP-24-0047
MEETING DATE: December 16, 2024

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a public hearing on a request to adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) approving the City of Pittsburg Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Thresholds to Evaluate Transportation Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Senate Bill 743). On October 22, 2024, the Planning Commission voted unanimously 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 10258 (Attachment 2) recommending approval of the proposal in its entirety.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the General Fund if this project is approved.

RECOMMENDATION
City Council open the public hearing; take public comment; close the public hearing and take the following action:

Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) approving the City of Pittsburg Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Thresholds to Evaluate Transportation Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Senate Bill 743).

BACKGROUND
In 2013, California Senate Bill (SB 743) established a reform process to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that resulted in a major change to how cities and counties must evaluate transportation impacts. SB 743 changed the focus of transportation impact analysis under CEQA Guidelines from Level of Service (LOS) to 388
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) as the preferred transportation impact metric. As such, this shift in the focus of transportation impacts is expected to better align impact analyses and mitigation outcomes with the State’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, encourage infill, and improve public health through more active transportation.

On December 12, 2022, the City of Pittsburg entered into a Consulting Services Agreement with Fehr & Peers, Inc., to provide transportation planning services to support the City in achieving SB 743 compliance. As part of this process, the City established a VMT Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), comprised of City staff from both the Community and Economic Development and Public Works Departments. The primary responsibility of the VMT TAC was to work together to develop a set of procedures and requirements pertaining to if, and when, an applicant for a development project in the City would be required to provide a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) as part of the development review process.

The City’s VMT TAC convened four times (on December 6, 2022, January 17, 2023, on February 21, 2023, and on March 29, 2023) and provided input regarding VMT metrics, calculation methods, VMT-based CEQA thresholds, screening criteria, and mitigation options to guide the City’s evaluation of transportation-related environmental impacts for new projects in accordance with SB 743. This effort led to the development of the proposed City TIA Guidelines (Attachment 1 – Exhibit A).

VMT TAC FINDINGS:

The focus of the Committee’s discussion at the first VMT TAC meeting was to determine the most appropriate methodology to use to evaluate the significance of a projects transportation impacts by determining the vehicle miles traveled, i.e., the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. In particular, the Committee considered what model the City should use, what metrics should be analyzed, and how VMT should be calculated.

Methodology
VMT TAC members agreed that the City should rely upon the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s (CCTA) Travel Demand Model for VMT assessments.

Committee members concurred that the CCTA model was most suitable for use because it provides best available trip data, is routinely maintained, and allows for future opportunities to take advantage of regional VMT reduction programs.

Metrics
VMT TAC members also generally concurred on the metric to be used opting to focus on home-based trips as opposed to commuter-based trips for residential uses. The home- based metric was preferred in part due to the desire to capture a majority of local trips such as to schools, shopping, and services in the City and greater region.

The second VMT TAC meeting focused on the key decision points related to what thresholds of significance should be used to determine if a project’s transportation impacts would have a significant effect on the environment, what type of criteria should be used to “screen out” projects that would not exceed VMT thresholds, and what measures should be used to mitigate VMT impacts.
389
Thresholds
VMT TAC members agreed unanimously to establish a VMT threshold consistent with the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI), formerly the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), recommendation of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita. For example, a project would be considered to cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds 15 percent of the existing countywide household average (for residential projects) or VMT per employee average (for office projects).

Screening Criteria
There was general consensus among VMT TAC members regarding the types of development projects that would generally “screen out” from having to provide a detailed VMT analysis.
 Small Projects (projects generating/attracting less than 110 trips per day, i.e., non-residential 10,000 square feet or less, single-family residential 10 dwelling units or less)
 CEQA-Exempt Projects (any project that is exempt from CEQA)  Small-Scale, Local-Serving Retail (commercial 50,000 square feet or less)  Active Transportation Projects (transit, bicycle and pedestrian and roadway)  Certain Public Services (police and fire stations, public utilities, and parks)  Residential and Employment-Generating Projects in Low-VMT Areas  Residential, Retail, Office or Mixed-Use Projects within Transit Priority Areas Exceptions to Screening Criteria
VMT TAC members agreed that exceptions to the screening criteria listed above would include projects:

 that are inconsistent with existing land uses/densities in the surrounding area,  expected to alter travel patterns or increase vehicle capacity,  with a Floor Area Ratio of less than 0.75,
 that exceed adopted parking standards,
 that are inconsistent with the City’s Sustainability Plan or Sustainable Communities Strategy/Plan Bay Area,
 that conflict with City programs, plans, ordinances or policies addressing the circulation system,
 that replace affordable housing with market-rate residential units,  with retail components that exceed 50,000 square feet, or  that substantially increase hazards due to geometric design features.

Projects not meeting the screening criteria or that include elements listed in the list of exceptions above would be required to complete a VMT Analysis and forecasting through the CCTA model to determine if they have a significant VMT impact.

VMT Analysis
Section 5.2.3 of the TIA Guidelines provide guidance for the preparation of a VMT Analysis that transportation engineers, project applicants, and City staff can utilize in assessing transportation impacts. Depending on the nature of the project, location, and other factors, a VMT Analysis may be limited in scope, due to screening thresholds, or may require a full assessment that evaluates VMT, discloses VMT impacts, and identifies 390
mitigation measures. The VMT Analysis would inform the necessary level of CEQA review and provide substantial evidence to support a CEQA determination regarding environmental impacts to transportation and circulation. The process of determining the level of VMT analysis needed is outlined in the TIA Guidelines.

Mitigation
The Committee’s discussion around VMT mitigation explored various options at the project, citywide and regional scale. Options for mitigation generally included modifications to project design to reduce project trips or trip length, relocation of the project to a more travel-efficient area, and/or implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce VMT generation. There was consensus among VMT TAC members that all new projects should be incorporating VMT reduction strategies into the project design and contributing towards reducing automobile dependence among all City residents and business owners.

Implementation
As the TIA Guidelines are implemented, staff may identify inefficiencies or challenges and administrative updates may be made at the discretion of the Directors of the Community and Economic Development or Public Works Departments or his/her designee. Future changes to the VMT thresholds or significance criteria in the TIA Guidelines will be at the sole discretion of the City Council and informed by State mandates and CEQA case law.

GENERAL PLAN/CODE COMPLIANCE:

The proposed TIA Guidelines are consistent with the following 2040 General Plan Circulation and Transportation Element Goals and Policies.

Goal-7-1: Provide a multimodal transportation network that enhances safety, access, comfort, and convenience for all users and minimizes vehicle miles travelled (VMT).

Policy-7-P-1.5: Implement and continue to increase efforts to reduce regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by supporting land use patterns and site designs that promote active modes of transportation, and public transit. 2040 General Plan Implementation Measures 7-A-1.a and 7-A-1.b related specifically to adoption of the proposed TIA Guidelines as follows:
7-A-1.a: Evaluate projects traffic and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) impacts of development projects based on the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines to determine transportation impacts to all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists, and to require projects to address impacts consistent with the requirements of CEQA.
7-A-1.b: Require proposed development projects with VMT levels above the City’s threshold to consider reasonable and feasible project modifications and other measures during the project design and review stage and the environmental review stage that would reduce VMT effects in a manner consistent with the City’s 391
sustainability goals, the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, and with State guidance on VMT reduction.

Environmental Determination:

The proposed TIA Guidelines are exempt from CEQA for the following reasons: 1) they do not meet the definition of a “project” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a)), 2) they do not constitute an activity covered by CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060(c)(2), 3) they do not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), and 4) they consist of an action taken by a regulatory agency to enhance and protect the environment pursuant to Government Code Section 15308 (Class 8).

As such, the TIA Guidelines are strictly a policy document to improve the City’s resilience to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve public health through more active transportation. Additionally, the TIA Guidelines do not provide entitlements to any specific land use projects, nor does it make any changes to the 2040 General Plan land use map or modify land use designations, densities, or land use intensities.

Public Notice:

On or prior to Friday, December 6, 2024, notice of the December 16, 2024, public hearing on this item was published in the East County Times, posted at City Hall, at the Pittsburg Library, on the ‘Public Notices’ section of the city’s website and on www.nextdoor.com (“Nextdoor”) and was sent directly to all subscribed residents in all city neighborhoods.

See Attachment 3 for the Notice of Public Hearing.

SUBCOMMITTEE FINDINGS
This item was not reviewed by a subcommittee.

STAFF ANALYSIS
The proposed TIA Guidelines are the culmination of input received from the VMT TAC, guidance from transportation consultant, Fehr & Peers, Inc., and is informed by publications from the California Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI), formerly Office of Planning and Research (OPR), the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), and other jurisdictions throughout the State that have established VMT programs.

In the interim, while the City’s TIA Guidelines have been under development, the City has used the recommended screening methodology and thresholds set forth in LCI’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA to evaluate VMT impacts for discretionary projects as part of required environmental review.

On October 22, 2024, the Planning Commission after a duly public noticed hearing voted 5-0 recommending the City Council adopt the TIA Guidelines. Adoption of the proposed TIA Guidelines would establish a local framework under which discretionary projects are reviewed and evaluated to assess VMT impacts in accordance with CEQA and SB 743.

Additionally, adoption would help make meaningful progress toward achieving the goals and policies in the 2040 General Plan and the City’s Sustainability Plan related to VMT. 392
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Proposed Resolution
a. Exhibit A - TIA Guidelines

2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 10258

3. Public Hearing Notice
Prepared by: Alison Spells, Associate Planner
393
Resolution No. 24- Page 1 of 2 December 16, 2024

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURG
In the Matter of:

Adopting the City of Pittsburg Transportation )
Impact Analysis Guidelines and Thresholds to ) RESOLUTION NO. 24- Evaluate Transportation Impacts Under CEQA )
WHEREAS, in 2013, California Senate Bill (SB) 743 established a reform process to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that resulted in a major change to how cities and counties must evaluate transportation impacts. SB 743 changed the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from Level of Service (LOS) to Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) as the preferred transportation impact metric; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2022, the City of Pittsburg entered into a Consulting Services Agreement with Fehr & Peers, Inc., to provide transportation planning services to support the City in achieving SB 743 compliance; and
WHEREAS, the City’s VMT TAC convened four times (on December 6, 2022, January 17, 2023, on February 21, 2023, and on March 29, 2023) to provide input regarding VMT metrics, calculation methods, VMT-based CEQA thresholds, screening criteria, and mitigation options in an effort to develop Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines in accordance with SB 743; and
WHEREAS, 2040 General Plan Implementation Measure 7-A-1.a requires the City evaluate the traffic and VMT impacts of development projects based on the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines to determine transportation impacts to all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists, and to require projects to address impacts consistent with the requirements of CEQA; and WHEREAS, adoption of the City’s TIA Guidelines would establish a local framework under which discretionary projects are reviewed and evaluated to assess VMT impacts in accordance with 2040 General Plan Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures, CEQA and SB 743; and
WHEREAS, the project is exempt from CEQA because it does not meet the definition of a “project” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a)), it does not constitute an activity covered by CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060(c)(2), it does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), and it consists of an action taken by a regulatory agency to enhance and protect the environment pursuant to Government Code Section 15308 (Class 8); and
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2024, after conducting a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10258, recommending the City Council adopt the City of Pittsburg Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Thresholds to Evaluate Transportation Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Senate Bill 743) for Planning Application No. AP-24-0047; and
394
Resolution No. 24- Page 2 of 2 December 16, 2024
WHEREAS, on or prior to December 6, 2024, notice of the December 16, 2024, public hearing was posted in the East County Times, at City Hall, at the Pittsburg Library, on the ‘Public Notices’ section of the city’s website and on www.nextdoor.com (“Nextdoor”) and was sent directly to all subscribed residents in all city neighborhoods.

Section 1. Findings
A. Based on the City Council Staff Report entitled, “Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of Pittsburg Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Thresholds to Evaluate Transportation Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Senate Bill 743), AP-24-0047,” and based on all the information contained in the Planning Division files on the project, incorporated herein by reference and available for review in the Planning Division located at 65 Civic Avenue in Pittsburg, and based on all written and oral testimony presented at the December 16, 2024, meeting, the City Council finds that:

1. All recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. Decision
Based on the findings and the authority set forth above, the City Council hereby takes the following action:

A. Adopts the Final Draft of the City of Pittsburg Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, as written in the attached “Exhibit A”.

Section 3. Adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pittsburg at a regular meeting on the 16th day of December 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAINED:

ABSENT:
________________________________
Jelani Killings, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Alice E. Evenson, City Clerk
395
City of Pittsburg
Transportation
Impact Analysis
Guidelines
October 2024
Final Draft
396
Table of Contents

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 SB 743 and the Updated CEQA Guidelines ........................................................................................ 1

1.2 CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis and City Development Review .......................................... 3

1.2.1 Non-CEQA Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 3

2. Developing the Scope of Work ........................................................................................... 5

2.1 Transportation Impact Analysis .......................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Focused Transportation Impact Analysis ........................................................................................... 5

3. Transportation Impact Study Format ............................................................................... 6

4. Non-CEQA Assessment ........................................................................................................ 8

4.1 Level of Service Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 8

4.1.1 LOS Analysis Methodologies ...................................................................................................... 8

4.1.2 Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives ....................................................................... 8

4.1.3 Selection of Study Intersections ................................................................................................ 9

4.1.4 Traffic Counting Protocol ........................................................................................................... 9

4.2 Level of Service Policies ...................................................................................................................... 10

4.2.1 Operational Improvements ..................................................................................................... 11

4.3 Analysis Scenarios ............................................................................................................................... 12

4.4 Project Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 12

4.4.1 Trip Generation ......................................................................................................................... 13

4.4.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment ........................................................................................... 14

4.5 Other Analyses .................................................................................................................................... 15

4.5.1 Site Plan Review ......................................................................................................................... 15

5. CEQA Assessment .............................................................................................................. 16

5.1 CEQA Significance Criteria.................................................................................................................. 16

5.2 VMT Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 16

5.2.1 VMT Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 16

5.2.2 Project VMT Screening .............................................................................................................. 17

5.2.3 VMT Assessment for Non-Screened Development .............................................................. 19

5.2.4 VMT Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 21

5.3 Other Environmental Considerations .............................................................................................. 29

397

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines 1

1. Introduction
The purpose of these Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines is to establish general procedures and requirements for the preparation of transportation impact studies for development projects within the City of Pittsburg. In general, they are designed for use by transportation engineering and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) professionals because of their technical contents. The term “guideline” is important in that the City recognizes that every project and study context is unique. The guidelines are intended as a checklist for study preparers to be sure that all required study items are included. They establish a uniform approach, methodology, and tool set to evaluate the effects of land use decisions and related transportation projects on the city transportation system. They are not intended to eliminate professional judgment or creativity.

However, the need for and final scope of a TIA shall be determined by the City of Pittsburg . This is intended to be a “living document” and will be updated periodically to reflect newly acquired data and relevant policies.

The primary objectives of these guidelines are to provide:
• Guidance in determining if and when a Transportation Impact Analysis is needed; • Consistency and uniformity in the identification of transportation impacts of proposed land uses;
• An early guidance to establish assumptions, data requirements, study scenarios and analysis methodologies prior to beginning the TIA; and
• Early coordination during the planning phases of a project to facilitate the preparation of a TIA.

These guidelines are intended to ensure that a TIA will address the potential effects of a proposed development on the transportation system of the city, giving equal attention to all modes of travel, in accordance with the goals of the City of Pittsburg’s General Plan. Note that these are only guidelines, and the information provided herein does not constitute a complete scope of work for any particular transportation analysis. The guidelines provide a broad overview of analysis procedures, while a tailored scope of work is required to match the size and complexity of transportation issues associated with a particular project. The City Enginee r, under the authority of the Public Works Director and recommendations from the Traffic Engineer, will make the final decision on the need for a transportation study.

1.1 SB 743 and the Updated CEQA Guidelines
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), signed by the Governor in 2013, changed the way transportation impacts are identified. Specifically, the legislation directed the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to consider different metrics for identifying transportation impacts under the California Environmental 398

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024
2 Quality Act. OPR finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines in December 2018; the updated Guidelines identify vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as the preferred transportation impact metric. The updated Guidelines state that, as of July 2020, all lead agencies must use VMT as the new transportation metric for identifying impacts of land use projects.

The updated guidelines include revised Appendix G Checklist questions for transportation impact evaluation. The four questions are:

Would the project:

1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including public transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

2. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

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

4. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Criteria 2 is the implementation of the SB 743 requirement. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) reads, in part, as follows:
(1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle-miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.

(2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.

(3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.

399

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines 3
(4) Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.

1.2 CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis and City
Development Review
One of the fundamental roles of government agencies is the construction and maintenance of public infrastructure facilities including roadways, rail and bus facilities, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, stormwater treatment facilities, parks, and other public facilities. When private development occurs, it is the responsibility of government to ensure that there are adequate public facilities to serve incremental population and employment growth.

For the transportation system, one way to address this issue has been the preparation of a Transportation Impact Analysis.

For the past several decades, the preparation of a TIA within the City of Pittsburg was integrated into the CEQA process, in which the TIA was used primarily to analyze a project’s impacts under CEQA.

However, with the passage of SB 743, changes to this process are necessary. Specifically, a TIA may need to be prepared as a stand-alone document, as part of the project approval process, including information for the decision makers that is not required as part of the CEQA process (e.g. Level of Service assessments).

The purpose of this TIA Guidelines document is to provide instructions for analyzing the potential transportation impacts of proposed development projects, for purposes of both the CEQA and non- CEQA transportation evaluations. These guidelines present the recommended methodology that should generally be utilized in the preparation of TIAs. These recommendations are general guidelines, and the City of Pittsburg may modify the TIA requirements based on the unique characteristics of a particular project.

1.2.1 Non-CEQA Analysis
SB 743 does not prevent a city from continuing to analyze delay or Level of Service (LOS ) outside of CEQA review for other transportation planning or analysis purposes (i.e., general plans, impact fee programs, corridor studies, congestion mitigation, or ongoing network monitoring); but these metrics may no longer constitute the sole basis for CEQA impacts.

The City of Pittsburg’s General Plan 2040 provides for the following policies relating to the calculation and assessment of intersection LOS:
400

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024
4 • Levels of Service shall be calculated using the latest version of the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual available at the time the analysis is prepared. • The City shall strive to maintain LOS D for motor vehicle traffic as the minimum acceptable service standard for all signalized and stop controlled intersections during peak periods. In the designated Downtown core, LOS E would be considered as an acceptable service standard to account for the more urban, pedestrian-oriented character of the area.

LOS can continue to be assessed relative to this standard during development review, to promote the City’s interest in maintaining and operating a functional roadway network. However, assessment of a development project’s effect on intersection level of se rvice must be conducted outside the
CEQA process. The assessment can be performed as part of a General Plan consistency assessment.

City planning and traffic engineering staff will define the scope and methodology for project -level of service analysis as part of the development review process. 401

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines 5

2. Developing the Scope of Work
A transportation impact analysis will be required by the City to assess the transportation effects of development projects on the existing and/or planned street system under the conditions described below.

2.1 Transportation Impact Analysis

1. Projects that do not meet any of the Vehicle Miles Traveled screening criteria outlined in section 5.2.2 of these guidelines,

2. When project-generated traffic is expected to be greater than 100 vehicle trips during the morning or evening peak hour,

3. When project-generated traffic is expected to be greater than 1,000 vehicle trips per day, or

4. When a project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) that changes the land use and is expected to generate greater than 50 vehicle trips during the morning or evening peak hour.

2.2 Focused Transportation Impact Analysis
The City may require a focused transportation analysis in lieu of a full transportation analysis under any of the following circumstances:
• When project traffic will affect an intersection or roadway segment where there are known traffic concerns in the vicinity of the project site.
• Any project that contains a “drive through” function. • When the project will substantially change the off‐site transportation system or result in diversion of traffic to other routes, including physical changes such as street closures or access restrictions, lane reductions, new traffic signals or stop signs, disruption of sidewalk or bikeway continuity or safety, relocation or obstruction of transit stops, etc. • When the project produces between 50 to 100 morning or evening peak hour trips. • When the project is within 1,000 feet of a freeway on‐ramp. • When the proposed project may be presumed to have a less ‐than‐significant VMT impact through screening criteria, but the presumption needs to be verified.

The scope of the focused traffic analysis would be reviewed by City staff, but at minimum should show that the project would not result in any significant effect on any transportation facility or mode.
402

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024
6 3. Transportation Impact
Study Format
The content and level of analysis necessary to evaluate a project will vary and are dependent on the scope of land use proposal and location within the city. All transportation impact studies will be generally organized and contain the information provided in the following outline. Additional study elements may be required by the City Traffic Engineer.

1. Executive Summary
a. Project Description and Analysis Parameters
b. Key Findings and Recommendations
i. CEQA Findings
ii. Non-CEQA Findings and Recommendations

2. Introduction
a. Study Purpose
b. Project Description
c. Site Location and Study Area Boundaries
d. Analysis Scenarios
e. Analysis Methods
f. Regulatory Setting – Applicable Plans and Policies
g. Significance Criteria

3. Existing Conditions
a. Existing Roadway System
b. Existing Pedestrian Facilities
c. Existing Bicycle Facilities
d. Existing Transit Service
e. Existing Traffic Counts
f. Existing Operations Assessment

4. Project Characteristics
a. Project Description
b. Project Trip Generation
c. Project Trips Distribution and Assignment

5. Existing with Project Conditions
a. Existing with Project Traffic Volumes
b. Analysis of Existing with Project Conditions
403

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines 7

6. Near-Term Traffic Conditions
a. Approved and Pending Near-Term Projects
b. Near-Term Traffic Forecasts
c. Near-Term Roadway Assumptions
d. Analysis of Near-Term Conditions

7. Cumulative Traffic Conditions
a. Cumulative Traffic Forecasts
b. Cumulative Roadway Assumptions
c. Analysis of Cumulative Conditions

8. Site Plan Review
a. Vehicular Circulation
b. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
c. Emergency Vehicle Access
d. Transit Facilities
e. Construction Traffic Assessment
f. Parking
i. City Code Requirements
ii. Parking Demand

9. Environmental Assessment
a. Vehicle Miles Traveled
b. Pedestrian System Impacts
c. Bicycle System Impacts
d. Transit System Impacts
e. Emergency Vehicle Access Impacts
f. Vehicular Circulation/Hazardous Features

10. Summary of Findings

11. Appendix
a. Traffic Counts
b. Intersection Operations Calculations
c. Traffic Signal Warrant Calculations
404

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024
8 4. Non-CEQA Assessment

4.1 Level of Service Analysis
When evaluating the effects of development projects on the performance of the City of Pittsburg’s transportation facilities, the City applies operational standards to ensure the levels of growth and development provided in the City of Pittsburg’s General Plan Land Use Element are sufficiently accommodated.

4.1.1 LOS Analysis Methodologies
The method used for evaluating LOS at signalized and unsignalized intersections shall be the method defined in the latest version of the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), unless directed otherwise by the City. This method bases intersection operations on the average vehicular control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move- up time, stopped delay, and acceleration delay. The average delay for intersections should be calculated using the latest version of Synchro analysis software, unless directed otherwise by the City.

Roundabout intersections should be analyzed using the latest version of the SIDRA software.

Freeway mainline segment LOS and ramp junction LOS shall be analyzed using the latest HCM operational analysis consistent with Caltrans’ Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines.

4.1.2 Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives
As necessary, projects shall evaluate their effects on the appropriate Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSO) as defined in the latest version of CCTA’s technical guidance. For freeway segments, the East County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, CCTA has established the delay index as the Multimodal Transportation Service Objective for State Route 4 (SR 4) through Pittsburg. The delay index is the ratio of travel time on a facility divided by the travel times that occur during non-congested free-flow periods. Should the delay index exceed 2.5 during either the AM or PM peak period, freeway operations would be considered deficient. This would equate to peak hour travel taking 2.5 times as long as off-peak travel or an average travel speed below 26 miles per hour assuming a non-congested free-flow speed of 65 miles per hour. The number of vehicles traveling in the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane is also an MTSO.
405

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines 9

4.1.3 Selection of Study Intersections
The scope of the transportation analysis shall include the following intersections:
• All intersections adjacent to the project site;
• All signalized or all-way stop controlled intersections that operate at LOS E or F to which the project would add 30 or more peak hour trips;
• All signalized or all-way stop controlled intersections to which the project would add 50 or more peak hour trips; and
• All side-street stop-controlled intersection(s) where 50 or more peak hour trips are added by the project to any individual movement other than the major-street through movement.

Study intersections should be selected without consideration of jurisdictional boundaries. Additional study intersections may be selected after City staff has reviewed the trip generation, distribution, and assignment of a proposed project.

Study intersections should also include arterial and ramp intersections along defined Routes of Regional Significance, as appropriate. When the proposed project adds more than 50 net new vehicle trips to a freeway ramp, the project should be evaluated against the freeway multi -modal transportation service objectives (MTSOs) provided East County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance.

4.1.4 Traffic Counting Protocol
Traffic counts for shall be conducted as follows:

1. Three-hour peak period transportation counts of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists are required for all study intersections. Typical analysis will include both weekday morning (6a.m. – 9a.m.) and evening (4p.m. – 7p.m.) peak periods. Counts shall be recorded at 5- minute or 15-minute intervals, tallied by turning movement for vehicles and bicyclists and by crossing leg for pedestrians.

2. At saturated intersections, traffic demand shall be based on the arrival counts, queue lengths, and departure volumes. Typical intersection vehicle counts yield only the departure volumes through an intersection. For saturated intersections, departure volu mes do not reflect actual demand because of growing queues on the intersection approaches, and thus the need for arrival counts.

3. During Fair Weather – Counts should be conducted in fair weather, without rain, flooding, heavy winds, or other adverse weather conditions that could disrupt the flow of traffic.

4. Counts shall be conducted on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday of a non-holiday week when public schools are in session.
406

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024
10 5. Typical School Day – Counts should be taken on typical school days avoiding half days, late start days and early-dismissal days whenever possible.

6. No Major Road Closings – If temporary road closings have occurred that affect traffic flow at the count location, the count should be postponed until the road is re -opened. If the road closing is to be for an extended period, and a count needs to be conduc ted, the count results should be annotated to reflect the road closure conditions.

7. No Construction Activity – Counts should not be conducted in the presence of construction activity that could disrupt the arrival or departure of traffic at the count location.

8. No Incidents or Accidents – If an incident or accident has occurred in the vicinity of the count location, or if such an event occurs during the count, the count should be discarded, and repeated at a later date.

4.1.4.1 Field Observations
The transportation consultant should observe each study intersection during peak hours of analysis and document their field observations. This should the following:
• Do field observations of delay match calculated delay • Freeway ramp effects on local streets, including ramp meter spillback • Uneven lane demand and usage
• Presence and effect of on‐street parking
• Pedestrian and bicycle safety issues
• Transit routes and location of transit stops
• Cut‐through traffic in neighborhoods
• Sight distance issues
• Intersection saturation that may explain low peak period traffic counts • Queuing and storage length
• Issues affecting transit operations
• Truck routes
For study locations where saturated conditions exist, the consultant should note the corresponding traffic queue lengths at the beginning and end of each 15‐minute interval.

4.2 Level of Service Policies
Although not a CEQA metric, intersection levels of service are required to be assessed for General Plan compliance and to identify potential transportation improvements that could be implemented 407

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines 11
as part of the project to improve the overall operations of the transportation system for all travel modes. The City of Pittsburg’s General Plan 2040 provides for the following policies relating to the calculation and assessment of intersection LOS:
• Levels of Service shall be calculated using the latest version of the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual available at the time the analysis is prepared. • The City shall strive to maintain LOS D for motor vehicle traffic as the minimum acceptable service standard for all signalized and stop controlled intersections during peak periods. In the designated Downtown core, LOS E would be considered as an acceptable service standard to account for the more urban, pedestrian-oriented character of the area.

The project could have a noticeable effect on local and regional travel if it would cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, or delay and congestion at intersections), or change the condition of an existing street (e.g., street closures, changing direction of travel) in a manner that would substantially change access or traffic load and capacity of the street system.

Recommendations will be designed to enhance mobility for all travel modes, including transit vehicles, without degrading or precluding the provision of planned bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities.

For the Caltrans freeway facilities, the operational standards and significance criteria are established by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) acting as the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) representing the jurisdictions of Contra Costa County. As the acting CMA, the CCTA establishes the traffic LOS standards for all state highway facilities in Contra Costa County, which supersede the general Caltrans operational standard for all state highways. 1

4.2.1 Operational Improvements
The traffic analysis must recommend appropriate treatments for the transportation system to offset operational deficiencies that are found to have exceeded operational standards for the City of Pittsburg. Furthermore, as appropriate, the traffic analysis must disclose any secondary operational deficiencies that the proposed treatments could generate. For example, the secondary operational deficiency generated by adding approach lanes to an intersection could include an increase in pedestrian crossing time. The project should pay their proportionate share of improvements that would provide acceptable operations or participate in the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Finance Authority (ECCRFFA) regional fee program if improvements that would result in accepta ble operations at the location are added to the fee program. A reimbursement agreement could be

1 2013 Contra Costa Congestion Management Plan, Contra Costa County Authority, Walnut Creek, CA, 94598, December 19, 2013.
408

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024
12 established with the City of Pittsburg to collect proportionate shares from other developments that would benefit from the improvement.

4.3 Analysis Scenarios
The transportation operations analysis shall include, as a minimum, consideration of the following scenarios:

1. Existing Conditions – This scenario evaluates transportation facilities based on volumes, lane geometry and traffic controls at the time of analysis.

2. Existing plus Project Conditions – Existing Conditions with the addition of traffic form the proposed project.

3. Near-term Conditions – Existing Conditions with the addition of trips added by the buildout of approved and planned projects in the study area expected to be complete in the next 5 to 10 years.

4. Near-term plus Project Conditions – Near-term Conditions with the addition of traffic from the proposed project.

5. Cumulative Conditions (Year 2040)– This scenario evaluates horizon year conditions with the implementation of all approved land use changes and any development that is consistent with the General Plan and expected to occur within the time frame of the project.

It will also include transportation projects programmed for implementation prior to the horizon year and any programmed capital improvements. Unless otherwise directed by the City, cumulative forecasts should be developed using the latest available version of the CCTA travel demand model. Currently the CCTA travel demand model has a horizon year of 2040.

6. Cumulative plus Project Conditions – Cumulative Conditions with the addition of traffic from the proposed project.

4.4 Project Assessment
The TIA should include a detailed description of the project, including factors which quantify traffic generation, (e.g., dwelling units, square feet of office space, persons to be employed, restaurant seats). A detailed site plan shall be provided that includes access, circulation, parking, and loading as applicable. The project description should include the following information:

1. Location of the project site, address, and cross streets; information regarding the project site's lot area, existing and proposed zoning.

2. Existing and proposed total gross square footage for each land use type and the number of units for residential uses, including the net changes for each type of use.

3. Existing and proposed estimated number of employees and/or dwelling units by type of use, including net changes.

4. Existing and proposed number of off‐street parking spaces and whether any on‐street or off- street parking spaces will be removed.
409

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines 13

5. Existing and proposed number of off‐street and on‐street freight loading spaces as well as any proposed changes affecting on‐street loading spaces.

6. Detailed plans showing vehicular and pedestrian site access, including location of curb cuts for both existing and proposed uses, and internal vehicular circulation, presented in standard architectural or engineering scale.

7. Figure identifying parking spaces, the proposed egress and ingress to the parking garage or lot, the circulation pattern within the parking facility and the number and location of parking spaces for the disabled (accessible parking spaces).

8. Figure showing the location, dimensions and access to the off‐street freight loading spaces as well as the on‐site location for trash and garbage storage.

9. Identification of the location, number, type of bicycle parking spaces provided, and proposed primary access.

4.4.1 Trip Generation
Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of vehicular traffic a project would add to the surrounding roadway system. Trip generation estimates shall be developed using the latest version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. Trips should be calculated using the weighted average rates or rates from the regression equations as determined according to the guidelines in the ITE Trip Generation Manual .

Special consideration should be given for ITE rates based on antiquated data or a small sample, which may require use of other data sources or additional data collection to determine the appropriate trip generation. (Local trip generation surveys may be re quired if the project site is not compatible with any ITE land use codes, the land use code has fewer than five data points, the project size does not fall within the range of ITE study site, or standard deviation is greater than 110 percent of the weighted average rate).

Other trip generation rates may be approved by the City due to unique characteristics of a proposed project. In cases where the published ITE trip generation rates are based on very limited data, rates shall be verified through alternative source documents or local peak-period field observations of similar uses. When ITE data is not available or if the available ITE categories are inadequate for a specific project, trips may be determined using other references such as the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) publications and other reputable sources. Appropriate supporting information is required for the use of these other non‐ITE or SANDAG data sources.

New rates may be determined from similar land uses in the community for uses not updated or included in the ITE Trip Generation Manual or other acceptable data sources, subject to receipt of documentation acceptable to City staff. Local trip generation studies should follow the procedures prescribed in the ITE Trip Generation Manual.
410

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024
14 4.4.1.1 Other Trip Generation Adjustments
The City may consider the following adjustments to trip generation if appropriate:

1. Existing trips generated by
uses at the project site to be removed are already included in existing transportation counts and thus may be subtracted from the total project trip generation. A trip generation survey of the existing site is generally required for claiming this trip reduction and the results of the survey shall determine the reduction; however, ITE Trip Generation analysis may be substituted for a survey subject to the approval of City transportation staff. If the existing and proposed site differs by land uses and/or access points, existing trips shall be distributed and reassigned separately to the network as both positive and negative trips.

2. Pass-by, diverted, and linked trips are created by intermediate stops on a through trip. Pass- by trips are existing trips that enter the project site and then exit in the same direction of travel. They are attracted to the land use – typically service stations, fast food restaurants, and convenience stores – from an adjacent roadway with direct access to the project site.

Diverted and linked trips are existing trips on nearby roadways that will divert from their existing routes to access the project site, typically larger retail development. These trips change existing through movements to turning movements or vice versa at nearby intersections. The latest edition of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook shall be used as the starting point to determine these reductions. Pass-by trip reductions shall only be applied to shopping centers greater than 10,000 square feet, service stations, fast food restaurants, and convenience stores. Use of this reduction requires justification of the percent reduction based on existing volumes and an analysis of turning movements to and from the project driveways.

4.4.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment
Project trip distribution refers to the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would take to access and leave the site. A figure illustrating the percentage of peak hour project ‐generated traffic going to and from various destinations along the transportation network shall be included in the TIA. Trip distribution shall be based on the proposed land use, existing travel patterns, site access to major corridors, relative locations of complementary land uses, and model runs of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority travel demand model. Typically, CCTA model runs should only be used for a general trip distribution to and from the north, south, east, and west. Project trips should then be manually assigned to the driveways, intersections, and roadway segments according to the trip distribution, and account for any turning movement restrictions or other relevant roadway characteristics including relative level of congestion on available route options. The model should not be relied on for project trip assignment.

A preliminary trip distribution pattern should be submitted in the proposed project scope for review and approval by City staff. Trip distribution may be further refined after consultation with City staff, even after a transportation analysis work scope is agreed upon. 411

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines 15
A figure illustrating the assignment of peak hour project‐only trips at the driveways, study intersections, and roadway segments based on the trip distribution shall be included in the TI A. If the trip distribution is different between existing, near‐term, and cumulative conditions, a figure shall be provided for each different trip distribution and/or assignment with supporting discussion and justification. All assumptions shall have proper citation and justification for their use in the TIA .

The trip distribution and assignment assumptions shall be submitted with the work scope for review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer, which the consultant should obtain before proceeding with subsequent traffic analysis.

4.5 Other Analyses
The following assessments should be included in the TIA as appropriate and directed by C ity staff.

4.5.1 Site Plan Review
The TIA will review and evaluate the site plan for the proposed project to ensure safe and efficient circulation of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians through the project site and on the roadways adjacent to the project site. The site plan review section will include evaluations of the following:

1. Site access and interface with roadway network including adequacy of turn -pocket lengths, driveway throat lengths, sight distance and level of service

2. Vehicular circulation and internal intersection operations

3. Emergency vehicle access and circulation

4. Pedestrian access and circulation within and adjacent to the site

5. Bicycle access and circulation within and adjacent to the site

6. Transit and shuttle vehicle circulation within and adjacent to the site

7. Pedestrian access to and from transit stops

8. Truck circulation and loading dock access

9. Level of parking supply in relation to code requirements and expected demand

10. Construction traffic evaluation and phasing

11. Bicycle parking

412

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024
16 5. CEQA Assessment

5.1 CEQA Significance Criteria
A project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:

1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including public transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

2. Conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

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

4. Result in inadequate emergency access.

CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) details the requirements regarding the implementation of SB 743 and the use of VMT in the assessment of transportation impacts.

5.2 VMT Analysis
A key element of SB 743, signed in 2013, is the elimination of automobile delay and LOS as the sole basis of determining CEQA impacts. The most recent CEQA guidelines, released in December 2018, recommend VMT as the most appropriate measure of project transportation impacts. However, SB 743 does not prevent a city from continuing to analyze delay or LOS as part of other plans (i.e., the general plan), studies, or ongoing network monitoring. These guidelines provide technical guidance regarding the assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures for land development and transportation projects within the City of Pittsburg.

5.2.1 VMT Thresholds of Significance
The following are thresholds of significance related to substantial additional VMT:
• For residential projects, a project would cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds existing countywide household VMT per capita minus 15 percent. • For office projects, a project would cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds the existing countywide VMT per employee minus 15 percent.
• For regional retail projects a project would cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds the baseline Bay Area total VMT per service population minus 15 percent. • Mixed-use projects – shall be divided into their individual constituent parts and evaluated against their individual components’ standards.

Additional guidance is provided in below regarding review of other types of land uses.

413

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines 17

5.2.2 Project VMT Screening
The following screening criteria may be used to identify types, characteristics, and/or locations of land use projects that would not exceed these VMT thresholds of significance. If a project or components of the project meet any of the below screening criteria, then it is presumed VMT impacts would be less than significant for the project or component of the project and a detailed VMT analysis is not required. It should be noted that City staff can deny the use of screening criteria if substantial evidence suggests that the project is not appropriate for screening.

There are three key screening criteria for projects: project type, project location in a low-VMT area, and project location near transit stations. A project only needs to meet one of the three screening criteria to “screen out”. Projects that do not meet any of the identified screening criteria are required to conduct a detailed VMT assessment.

5.2.2.1 Screening Criteria 1: Project Type
Absent substantial evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, the following types of projects should be expected to cause a less- than-significant impact under CEQA and would not require further VMT analysis.
• Small Projects: Small projects generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day. Based on research for small project triggers, this may equate to non-residential projects of 10,000 square feet or less and single-family residential projects of 10 units or less, or otherwise generating less than 836 VMT per day.
• CEQA Exemption: Any project that is exempt from CEQA is not required to conduct a VMT analysis.
• Small Scale, Local-Serving Retail: Local-serving retail projects are defined as projects of less than 50,000 square feet in size on the basis that they attract trips that would otherwise travel longer distances. Local-serving retail generally improves the convenience of shopping and other activities close to home and has the effect of reducing vehicle travel. • Small and Active Transportation Projects: Screened transportation projects are transit projects, bicycle and pedestrian projects, and roadway projects that do not result in an increase in vehicle capacity.
• Public services: Police stations, fire stations, public utilities, and parks do not generally generate VMT. Instead, these land uses are often built in response to development from other land uses (e.g., office and residential). Therefore, these land uses can be presumed to have less-than-significant impacts on VMT. However, this presumption would not apply if the project is sited in a location that would require employees or visitors to travel substantial distances and the project is not located within ½ mile of a major transit stop or does not meet the small project screening criterion.
414

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024
18 5.2.2.2 Screening Criteria 2: Low VMT Area Screening Residential and
employment‐generating projects located within a low-VMT generating area of the city (i.e., lower than baseline average levels, based on the significance thresholds in this document) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

For this screening, CCTA’s Travel Demand Model shall be utilized to compare the proj ect’s characteristics to land uses currently in the low‐VMT area and for individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs). TAZs are geographic polygons like Census block groups used to represent areas of homogenous travel behavior. For low VMT area screening to be satisfied, the analyst must verify that the project land uses would not alter the existing built environment in such a way as to increase the rate or length of vehicle trips (e.g. the proposed project is consistent with ex isting land use in the area, the project would be expected to contribute VMT consistent with existing land use in the area, and the project would not significantly alter travel patterns in the area).

A low VMT area is defined as follows:
• For housing projects: TAZs that have a baseline home ‐based VMT per capita that is 85% or less of the existing countywide average.
• For employment‐generating projects: TAZs that have baseline home‐work VMT per worker that is 85% or less of the existing countywide average.

To identify if the project is in a low VMT‐generating area, the analyst may review the screening maps provided as Figure 1 (residential project mapping) and Figure 2 (employment-generating project mapping) attached to this document. Additionally, as noted above, the analyst must identify if the project is consistent with the existing land use (e.g., if the project is proposing single‐ family housing, there should be existing single‐family housing of approximately the same density) within that TAZ and use professional judgement that there is nothing unique about the about the project that would otherwise be misrepresented utilizing the data from the travel demand model.

5.2.2.3 Screening Criteria 3: Proximity to Transit
Projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA)2 may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This includes residential, retail, office projects, or

2 A TPA is defined as a half mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor per the definitions below. The City has discretion to measure the half-mile based on a straight radius or walking routes. The straight radius method will maximize the footprint of the TPA and allow for the greatest amount of potential project screening. Using the walking route method will decrease the land area subject to potential TPA screening but will increase the likelihood that development projects located in this area have a less than 1/2 mile walking distance to the transit station. Academic research has demonstrated that walking distance is an important factor that influences the choice to take transit and thereby reduce VMT. For more background on this, see the following article:
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/20111018UCB-ITS-VWP-2011-5.pdf). 415

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines 19
mixed-use projects proposed within half mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor. In Pittsburg, the existing BART Stations (Pittsburg/Bay Point and Pittsburg Center) are major transit stops and the 381 Eastbound and 381 Westbound Tri -Delta Transit Bus Routes are a high quality transit corridor. This presumption would not apply, however, if project-specific or location-specific information indicates that the project will still generate significant levels of VMT. For example, the presumption might not be appropriate if the project:

1. Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;

2. Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the City (if the City requires the project to supply parking);

3. Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy /Plan Bay Area;

4. Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units; or

5. Has a retail component that is greater than 50,000 square feet.

Projects in proximity to an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high -quality transit corridor that do not satisfy all these criteria should prepare a detailed VMT analysis.

5.2.3 VMT Assessment for Non-Screened Development
Projects not screened through the steps above should complete a VMT analysis and forecasting through the CCTA model to determine if they have a significant VMT impact. This analysis shall include “projected generated VMT” and “project effect VMT” estimates for the project TAZ(s) under the following scenarios:
• Baseline Conditions – This data is available from the CCTA travel demand model; analysts should use caution to ensure that the baseline values calculated are reflective of values at the time that the Notice of Preparation for a project is released (consistent with guidance from OPR). The screening maps also provide the baseline VMT per service population in the City of Pittsburg.

• Baseline Plus Project – The project land use would be added to the project TAZ or a separate TAZ would be created to contain the project land uses. A full base year model run would be performed and VMT changes must be isolated for the project TAZ and across the

Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 – ‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.’ Note that this requirement means that both intersecting routes must have the 15-minute or less frequency of service interval.

Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 – For purposes of this section, a ‘high-quality transit corridor’ means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. 416

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024
20 full model network. The model output must include reasonableness checks of the production and attraction balancing to ensure the project effect is accurately captured. If this scenario results in a less-than-significant impact, then additional cumulative scenario analysis may not be required.

The screening maps provide an estimate of the Baseline plus project conditions. This data could be presented in lieu of results from the full model run if the project land use is well represented in the TAZ (adding more employment to an employment center area). However, it is recommended that a base year plus project run always be performed as a check for reasonableness and consistency with the cumulative year results.
• Cumulative No Project– This data is available from the CCTA travel demand model. The cumulative year shall be confirmed with City staff prior to beginning the cumulative analysis.

• Cumulative Plus Project – The project land use would either be added to the project TAZ or a separate TAZ would be created to contain the project land uses. The addition of project land uses may need to be accompanied by a reallocation of a similar amount of land use from other TAZs; especially if the proposed project is significant in size such that it could change other future developments. Land use projects are often represented in the assumed growth of the cumulative year population and employment. It may be appropriate to remove land use growth that represents the project from the cumulative year model to represent the cumulative no project scenario. If project land uses are simply added to the cumulative no project scenario, then the analysis should reflect this limitation in the methodology and acknowledge that the analysis may overestimate the project’s effect on VMT.

The model output should include total VMT, which includes all vehicle trips and trip purposes, and VMT per service population (population plus employment), home based VMT per resident for residential, and home-based-work VMT per worker for employment uses. Total VMT (by speed bin) is needed as an input for air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG), and energy impact analysis while total VMT per service population is recommended for transportation impact analysis.

Both “plus project” scenarios noted above will summarize different types of VMT: (1) project generated VMT per service population, home based VMT per resident for residential, and home -
based-work VMT per worker for employment uses and comparing those back to the appropriate benchmark noted in the thresholds of significance, and (2) the project effect on VMT, comparing how the project changes VMT compared to the no project condition.

Project-generated VMT shall be extracted from the travel demand forecasting model using the origin-destination trip matrix and shall multiply that matrix by the final assignment skims. The project-effect on VMT shall be estimated using the appropriate boundary and extracting the total link-level VMT for both the no project and with project condition. 417

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines 21

5.2.4 VMT Mitigation Measures
To mitigate VMT impacts, the following general choices are available to projects:

1. Modify the project’s design features and/or land uses to reduce project trips or reduce trip length.

2. Moving the proposed development to a more travel-efficient area (i.e. area with access to high quality transit, or other transportation solutions that reduce the length/number of trips).

3. Implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce VMT generated by the project.

Of the strategies included within these general categories, only a subset of the strategies is likely to be effective in a suburban setting such as Pittsburg. Proposed projects shall utilize the latest version of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (“CAPCOA”) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures document to estimate the maximum feasible VMT mitigation. However, it should be noted that most of the data used to develop the CAPCOA mitigation strategies are based on projects from urban or relatively dense suburban areas. The effectiveness of VMT mitigations will vary from project to project based on the surrounding land use context, the combination of its uses, and the availability of alternative transportation modes. The proposed project’s transportation impact analysis must quantifiably demonstrate, through the use of reliable calculation tools, proposed VMT mitigations will result in the estimated reductions when applied to the project. In the event a proposed project’s characteristics render most or all the aforementioned mitigation strategies infeasible or ineffective, City staff will consider other mitigations options.

The following VMT mitigation strategies should be considered by projects for the mitigation of VMT impacts within the City.

Land Use
T-2: Increase Job Density – This measure accounts for the VMT reduction achieved by a project that is designed with a higher density of jobs compared to the average job density in the U.S. Increased densities affect the distance people travel and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose. Increasing job density results in shorter and fewer trips by single -occupancy vehicles and thus a reduction in GHG emissions.

T-3: Provide Transit-Oriented Development – This measure would reduce project VMT in the study area relative to the same project sited in a non-transit-oriented development (TOD) location. TOD refers to projects built in compact, walkable areas that have easy access to public transit, ideally in a location with a mix of uses, including housing, retail offices, and community facilities. Project site residents, employees, and visitors would have easy access to high -quality public transit, thereby encouraging transit ridership and reducing the number of single occupancy vehicle trips and associated GHG emissions.
418

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024
22 T-17: Improve Street Connectivity – This measure accounts for the VMT reduction achieved by a project that is designed with a higher density of vehicle intersections compared to the average intersection density in the U.S. Increased vehicle intersection density is a proxy for street connecti vity improvements, which help to facilitate a greater number of shorter trips and thus a reduction in GHG emissions.

Trip Reduction Programs
T-5: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Voluntary) – This measure will implement a voluntary commute trip reduction (CTR) program with employers. CTR programs discourage single occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT and GHG emissions. Voluntary implementation elements are described in this measure.

T-6: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Mandatory Implementation and Monitoring) – This measure will implement a mandatory CTR program with employers. CTR programs discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT and GHG emissions.

T-7: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing – This measure will implement a marketing strategy to promote the project site employer’s CTR program. Information sharing and marketing promote and educate employees about their travel choices to the employment location beyond driving such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT and GHG emissions.

T-8: Provide Ridesharing Program – This measure will implement a ridesharing program and establish a permanent transportation management association with funding requirements for employers.

This strategy includes measures such as designating a proportion of parking spaces exclusive to ride sharing vehicles, providing adequate loading, and unloading areas for passengers of ride -sharing vehicles and generating a web site or message board for ride coordination. The focus of this strategy is to increase the vehicle occupancy by ride sharing between people driving similar trips, which will result in fewer cars, and thus a decrease in VMT.

T-9: Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program – Employees Only – This measure will provide subsidized or discounted, or free transit passes for employees and/or residents. Reducing the out - of-pocket cost for choosing transit improves the competitiveness of transit against driving, increasing the total number of transit trips and decreasing vehicle trips. This decrease in vehicle trips results in reduced VMT and thus a reduction in GHG emissions.

T-9-A: Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program – Employees and Residents – This measure will provide subsidized or discounted, or free transit passes for employees and residents. Reducing the out-of-pocket cost for choosing transit improves the competitiveness of transit against driving, increasing the total number of transit trips and decreasing vehicle trips. This decrease in vehicle trips results in reduced VMT and thus a reduction in GHG emissions. 419

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines 23
T-10: Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities – This measure will install and maintain end-of-trip facilities for employee use. End-of-trip facilities include bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers. The provision and maintenance of secure bike parking and related facilities encourages commuting by bicycle, thereby reducing VMT and GHG emissions.

T-11: Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool – This measure will implement an employer-sponsored vanpool service. Vanpooling is a flexible form of public transportation that provides groups of 5 to 15 people with a cost-effective and convenient rideshare option for commuting. This strategy is appropriate for office, industrial, and mixed-use projects. In some cases, this can be employed as a community strategy with employers within a particular area pooling resources to provide shuttles to transit. The mode shift from long-distance, single-occupied vehicles to shared vehicles reduces overall commute VMT, thereby reducing GHG emissions.

T-12: Price Workplace Parking – This measure will price onsite parking at workplaces. Because free employee parking is a common benefit, charging employees to park onsite increases the cost of choosing to drive to work, so employees consider alternative modes. It may include explicitly charging for parking for its employees, implementing above market rate pricing, validating parking only for invited guests, not providing employee parking and transportation allowances, and educating employees about available alternatives. This is expected to reduce single-occupancy vehicle commute trips, resulting in decreased VMT, thereby reducing associated GHG emissions.

T-13: Implement Employee Parking Cash-Out – This measure will require project employers to offer employee parking cash-out. Cash-out is when employers provide employees with a choice of forgoing their current subsidized/free parking for a cash payment equivalent to or greater than the cost of the parking space. This encourages employees to use other modes of travel instead of single occupancy vehicles. This mode shift results in people driving less and thereby reduces VMT and GHG emissions.

T-23: Community-Based Travel Planning – This measure will target residences in the plan/community with community-based travel planning (CBTP). CBTP is a residential based approach to outreach that provides households with customized information, incentives, and support to encourage the use of transportation alternatives in place of single occupancy vehicles, thereby reducing VMT and associated GHG emissions.

Parking or Road Pricing/Management
T-15: Limit Residential Parking Supply – This measure will reduce the total parking supply available at a residential project or site. Limiting the amount of parking available creates scarcity and adds additional time and inconvenience to trips made by private auto, thus disincentivizing driving as a mode of travel. Reducing the convenience of driving results in a shift to other modes and decreased VMT and thus a reduction in GHG emissions. Evidence of the effects of reduced parking supply is strongest for residential developments.
420

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024
24 T-16: Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from Property Cost – This strategy separates parking costs from property costs removing the burden from those who do not utilize parking spaces and requiring those who wish to do so to purchase parking spaces at an additional cost. On the assumption that parking costs are passed through to the vehicle owners/drivers utilizing the parking spaces, this measure results in decreased vehicle ownership and, therefore, a reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

T-24: Implement Market Price Public Parking (On
-Street) – This measure will price all on-street parking in a given community, with a focus on parking near central business districts, employment centers, and retail centers. Increasing the cost of parking increases the total cost of driving to a location, incentivizing shifts to other modes and thus decreasing total VMT to and from the priced areas. This VMT reduction results in a corresponding reduction in GHG emissions.

Neighborhood Design
T-18: Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements – This strategy focuses on creating a pedestrian network and connecting projects to nearby destinations via pedestrian pathways. Projects in the City of Pittsburg range in size, so the emphasis of this strategy for smaller projects would likely be the construction of network improvements that connect the project sites directly to nearby destinations.

For larger projects, this strategy could focus on the development of a robust pedestrian network within the project itself or closing gaps that could connect the project to other areas. This strategy could also include improvements that improve the safety outcomes for people walking, especially walking to/from transit stops. Alternatively, implementation could occur through an impact fee program or benefit/assessment district based on local or regional plans. Providing sidewalks and an enhanced pedestrian network encourages people to walk instead of drive. This mode shift results in a reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

T-19-A: Construct or Improve Bike Facility – This measure will construct or improve a single bicycle lane facility (only Class I, II, or IV) that connects to a larger existing bikeway network. Providing bicycle infrastructure helps to improve biking conditions within an area. This encourages a mode shift on the roadway parallel to the bicycle facility from vehicles to bicycles, displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG emissions. When constructing or improving a bicycle facility, a best practice is to consider local or state bike lane width standards. A variation of this measure is provided as T -18-B, Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard.

T-19-B: Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard – Construct or improve a single bicycle boulevard that connects to a larger existing bikeway network. Bicycle boulevards are a designation within Class III Bikeway that create safe, low-stress connections for people biking and walking on streets. This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to bicycles, displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG emissions. A variation of this measure is provided as T-18-A, Construct or Improve Bike Facility, which is for Class I, II, or IV bicycle infrastructure. 421

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines 25
T-20: Expand Bikeway Network – This measure will increase the length of a city or community bikeway network. A bicycle network is an interconnected system of bike lanes, bike paths, bike routes, and cycle tracks. Providing bicycle infrastructure with markings and signage on appropriatel y sized roads with vehicle traffic traveling at safe speeds helps to improve biking conditions (e.g., safety and convenience). In addition, expanded bikeway networks can increase access to and from transit hubs, thereby expanding the “catchment area” of the transit stop or station and increasing ridership. This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to bicycles, displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG emissions. When expanding a bicycle network, a best practice is to consider bike lane width standards from local agencies, state agencies, or the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Urban Bikeway Design Guide.

T-21-A: Implement Conventional Carshare Program – This measure will increase carshare access in the user’s community by deploying conventional carshare vehicles. Carsharing offers people convenient access to a vehicle for personal or commuting purposes. This helps encourage transportation alternatives and reduces vehicle ownership, thereby avoiding VMT and associated GHG emissions. A variation of this measure, electric carsharing, is described in Measure T- 20-B, Implement Electric Carshare Program.

T-21-B: Implement Electric Carshare Program – This measure will increase carshare access in the user’s community by deploying electric carshare vehicles. Carsharing offers people convenient access to a vehicle for personal or commuting purposes. This helps encourage transportation alternatives and reduces vehicle ownership, thereby avoiding VMT and associated GHG emissions. This also encourages a mode shift from internal combustion engine vehicles to electric vehicles, displacing the emissions-intensive fossil fuel energy with less emissions-intensive electricity. Electric carshare vehicles require more staffing support compared to conventional carshare programs for shuttling electric vehicles to and from charging points. A variation of this measure, conventional carsharing, is described in Measure T-20-A, Implement Conventional Carshare Program.

T-22-A: Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program – This measure will establish a bikeshare program. Bikeshare programs provide users with on-demand access to bikes for short-term rentals.

This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to bicycles, displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG emissions. Variations of this measure are described in Measure T-21-B, Implement Electric Bikeshare Program, and Measure T-21-C, Implement Scootershare Program.

T-22-B: Implement Electric Bikeshare Programs – This measure will establish an electric bikeshare program. Electric bikeshare programs provide users with on-demand access to electric pedal assist bikes for short-term rentals. This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to electric bicycles, displacing VMT and reducing GHG emissions. Variations of this measure are described in Measure T- 21-A, Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program, and Measure T-21-C, Implement Scootershare Program.
422

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024
26 T-22-C: Implement Scootershare Program – This measure will establish a scootershare program.

Scootershare programs provide users with on-demand access to electric scooters for short-term rentals. This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to scooters, displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG emissions. Variations of this measure are described in Measure T -21-A, Implement Pedal (Non- Electric) Bikeshare Program, and Measure T-21-B, Implement Electric Bikeshare Program.

Transit
T-25: Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours – This measure will expand the local transit network by either adding or modifying existing transit service or extending the operation hours to enhance the service near the project site. Starting services earlier in the morning and/or extending services to late-night hours can accommodate the commuting times of alternative-shift workers. This will encourage the use of transit and therefore reduce VMT and associated GHG emissions.

T-26: Increase Transit Service Frequency – This measure will increase transit frequency on one or more transit lines serving the plan/community. Increased transit frequency reduces waiting and overall travel times, which improves the user experience and increases the attractiveness of transit service.

This results in a mode shift from single occupancy vehicles to transit, which reduces VMT and associated GHG emissions.

T-27: Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments – This measure will implement transit- supportive treatments on the transit routes serving the plan/community. Transit -supportive treatments incorporate a mix of roadway infrastructure improvements and/or traffic signal modifications to improve transit travel times and reliability. This results in a mode shift from single occupancy vehicles to transit, which reduces VMT and the associated GHG emissions.

T-28: Provide Bus Rapid Transit – This measure will convert an existing bus route to a bus rapid transit (BRT) system. BRT includes the following additional components, compared to traditional bus service: exclusive right-of-way (e.g., busways, queue jumping lanes) at congested intersections, increased limited-stop service (e.g., express service), intelligent transportation technology (e.g., transit signal priority, automatic vehicle location systems), advanced technology vehicles (e.g., articulated buses, low-floor buses), enhanced station design, efficient fare-payment smart cards or smartphone apps, branding of the system, and use of vehicle guidance systems. BRT can increase the transit mode share in a community due to improved travel times, service frequencies, and the unique components of the BRT system. This mode shift reduces VMT and the associated GHG emissions.

T-29: Reduce Transit Fares – This measure will reduce transit fares on the transit lines serving the plan/community. A reduction in transit fares creates incentives to shift travel to transit from single - occupancy vehicles and other traveling modes, which reduces VMT and associated GH G emissions.

This measure differs from Measure T-8, Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program, 423

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines 27
which can be offered through employer-based benefits programs in which the employer fully or partially pays the employee’s cost of transit.

Clean Vehicles and Fuels
T-30: Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles – This measure requires use of cleaner-fuel vehicles (electric vehicles, natural gas and propane vehicles, and vehicles powered by biofuels) in lieu of similar vehicles powered by gasoline or diesel fuel.

The above list should not be considered exhaustive, and projects can propose other TDM measures if appropriate and desired.

5.2.4.1 VMT Mitigation Measure Effectiveness
An important consideration when combining TDM measures is whether a maximum VMT reduction should be applied based on the land use context. The CAPCOA methodology identifies VMT reduction maximums based on community types tied to land use context. The caps ar e applied at each step of the VMT reduction calculation (i.e., at the strategy scale, the combined strategy scale, and the global scale). However, these caps are not based on research related to the effectiveness of VMT reduction strategies in different land use contexts. The cap differences are largely based on VMT generation differences within different land use contexts and serves as a proxy for potential limits on VMT reduction strategy effectiveness. For suburban jurisdictions such as Pittsburg, CAPC OA identifies a global VMT reduction maximum of 15 percent. Table 1 presents a summary of the maximum allowable reductions we recommend for individual VMT mitigation measures based on the available research and the City’s local context. For projects adjace nt to the existing BART stations (Pittsburg/Bay Point and Pittsburg Center) or a high-quality transit corridor, a higher VMT reduction is likely to be realized. However, it is not expected that projects located adjacent to a BART station or high-quality transit corridor would result in a VMT impact that would need to be mitigated.

Table 1: VMT Mitigation Measure Reduction Caps
Mitigation Measure Maximum Allowable Reduction
Land Use
T-2: Increase Job Density 30.0%
T-3: Provide Transit-Oriented Development 31.0%
T-17: Improve Street Connectivity 30.0%
Trip Reduction Programs
T-5: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program
(Voluntary) 4.0%
T-6: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program
(Mandatory Implementation and Monitoring) 26.0%
T-7: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing 4.0%
424

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024
28 T-8: Provide Ridesharing Program 8.0%
T-9: Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit
Program – Employees Only 5.5%
T-9-A: Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit
Program – Employees and Residents 5.5%
T-10: Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities 4.4%
T-11: Provide Employer-Sponsored Van pool 8.1%
T-12: Price Workplace Parking 20.0%
T-13: Implement Employee Parking Cash-Out 12.0%
T-23: Community-Based Travel Planning 2.3%
Parking and Road Pricing/Management
T-15: Limit Residential Parking Supply 13.7%
T-16: Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from
Property Cost 15.7%
T-24: Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-
Street) 30.0%
Neighborhood Design
T-18: Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements 6.4%
T-19-A: Construct or Improve Bike Facility 0.8%
T-19-B: Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard 0.2%
T-20: Expand Bikeway Network 0.5%
T-21-A: Implement Conventional Carshare Program 0.15%
T-21-B: Implement Electric Carshare Program 0.18%
T-22-A: Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare
Program 0.02%
T-22-B: Implement Electric Bikeshare Programs 0.06%
T-22-C: Implement Scootershare Program 0.07%
Transit
T-25: Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours 4.6%
T-26: Increase Transit Service Frequency 11.3%
T-27: Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway
Treatments 0.6%
T-28: Provide Bus Rapid Transit 13.8%
T-29: Reduce Transit Fares 1.2%

Each of the TDM measures described above can be combined with others to increase the effectiveness of VMT mitigation; however, the interaction between the various TDM measures is 425

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines 29
complex and sometimes counter intuitive. Generally, with each additional measure implemented, a VMT reduction is achieved, but the incremental benefit of VMT reduction may diminish. To quantify the VMT reduction that results from combining TDM measures, the analyst must consider multiplicative dampening as outlined in the CAPCOA documentation.

5.3 Other Environmental Considerations
As noted in the Introduction, the updated CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist contains three additional criteria beyond the VMT evaluation criteria discussed in the preceding section. They are listed below.

Would the project:

1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

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

4. Result in inadequate emergency access?
TIAs should address these three questions, considering the unique characteristics of the project, including its location, size, design, use mix, transportation and urban form context, and other relevant details. TIAs should include a Multimodal Operations Analysis (MOA) to assess these environmental considerations and establish priorities for bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and other non-vehicular users. The City will determine if a proposed project reasonably and substantially affects the facilities or operations of the multimodal network and provide a list of required elements to be included in the MOA. The MOA should include the following elements.

Transit System
A description of the existing and planned transit facilities and services in the study area should be provided. The transit system evaluation will include an analysis of transit stops within the project area. Key items within the assessment should include transit operation efficiency and transit-rider amenities related to safety and comfort. The MOA should evaluate and incorporate transit improvements to existing stops located along the project frontage and/or within the site’s vicinity.

This should include, but is not limited to:
• Bus stops and amenities
• Sidewalk widths and ADA access
• Pedestrian crossings at intersections
• Potential improvements to reduce transit delays and improve service. 426

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024
30 Bicycle System
A description of the existing and planned bicycle facilities in the study area should be provided.

Assessments of bicycle safety in the study area should be conducted utilizing five-year collision data near the project site and site observations. The five-year collision data will include collisions that occurred on all dates and times throughout the full year. Site observations are to be recorded during typical operating conditions relative to site location and context, including but not limited to commute hours, midday peak, school hours, and other periods recommended by the City.

Summaries will include but are not limited to primary collision factors, direction of travel, compliance issues, near misses, travel pattern behaviors, and other considerations recommended by the City
Pedestrian System
A description of the existing and planned pedestrian facilities in the study area should be provided.

The pedestrian system assessment will include an analysis of existing uncontrolled crossings using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) “Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossings”. The section will include all locations within walking distance of the project area (approximately ½ mile) and any extents identified by the City. The TIA will use the guidance provided by FHWA to analyze locations where crossing opportunities would support pedestrian activity in the project area. The evaluation will include an inventory of the roadway network, existing pedestrian crossings, and recommendations for new crossings that will link paths, close gaps, and form complete networks of pedestrian-supportive infrastructure. It will include an analysis of the project’s access points with recommendations for crossing locations that support safe access for pedestrians approaching from all directions.

Significance Criteria
In the assessment of transit, bicycle and pedestrian network, the following standards of significance shall be used.

Transit System – The project would create a significant impact related to transit service if the following criteria is met:

1. The project interferes with existing transit facilities or precludes the construction of planned transit facilities.

Bicycle System – The project would create a significant impact related to the bicycle system if any of the following criteria are met:

1. Disrupt existing bicycle facilities; or

2. Interfere with planned bicycle facilities; or

3. Create inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. 427

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines
October 2024

City of Pittsburg TIA Guidelines 31
Pedestrian System – The project would create a significant impact related to the pedestrian system if any of the following criteria are met:

1. Disrupt existing pedestrian facilities; or

2. Interfere with planned pedestrian facilities; or

3. Create inconsistencies with adopted pedestrian system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.
428
!!
Browns Island
Reg. Shoreline
Lower Sherman
Island
Wildlife Area
Civic Ave
nueEvora Road
HarborStreet
East 10th Street
North Parkside Drive
Canal Road
West 10th Street
Lov
eridge Road
West Lela
nd Road
Somersv
ille Road
Delta Fair B
oulevard
East 14th Street
Sycamore Dr
Cres
tview Drive
James Donlon Boulevard
East Leland Road
Century Boulevard
Buchanan Road
LStreet
West 10th Street
California Avenue
Willow Pass Road
Power Avenue
Pi sburg-An ochHighway
San
Marco B
oulevard
Willow P
ass Road
West Buchanan Road
Marina Boulevard
West 4th St
Southw
ood Drive
BaileyRoad
Concord Bl
T omal
es Bay Drive
KirkerPassRoad
Port ChicagoHighway
Polaris Drive
·4
C:\Users\gchen\OneDrive - Fehr & Peers\Grace\01_PittsburgSB743Maps\CA_Template_Basemaps.aprx Source: CCTA Travel Demand Model
City of Pittsburg - Home-Based Vehicle-Miles Traveled Per Resident (2022) City of Pittsburg SB743 Implementation
Contra Costa County-Wide Average Home-Based VMT per Resident: 17.6 15% below Contra Costa County Average
Between 15% - 0% below Contra Costa County Average
Above Contra Costa County Average
TAZ with no Residents
City Boundary

0.5-mile BART Station Buffer
Figure 1
429
!!
Browns Island
Reg. Shoreline
Lower Sherman
Island
Wildlife Area
Civic Ave
nueEvora Road
HarborStreet
East 10th Street
North Parkside Drive
Canal Road
West 10th Street
Lov
eridge Road
West Lela
nd Road
Somersv
ille Road
Delta Fair B
oulevard
East 14th Street
Sycamore Dr
Cres
tview Drive
James Donlon Boulevard
East Leland Road
Century Boulevard
Buchanan Road
LStreet
West 10th Street
California Avenue
Willow Pass Road
Power Avenue
Pi sburg-An ochHighway
San
Marco B
oulevard
Willow P
ass Road
West Buchanan Road
Marina Boulevard
West 4th St
Southw
ood Drive
BaileyRoad
Concord Bl
T omal
es Bay Drive
KirkerPassRoad
Port ChicagoHighway
Polaris Drive
·4
C:\Users\gchen\OneDrive - Fehr & Peers\Grace\01_PittsburgSB743Maps\CA_Template_Basemaps.aprx Source: CCTA Travel Demand Model
City of Pittsburg - Commute Vehicle-Miles Traveled Per Worker (2022) City of Pittsburg SB743 Implementation
Contra Costa County-Wide Average Commute VMT per Worker: 14.9 15% Below
Between 15% - 0% below Contra Costa County Average
Above Contra Costa County Average
TAZ with no Employees
City Boundary

0.5-mile BART Station Buffer
Figure 2
430