Agenda packet — Pittsburg City Council, December 16, 2024 (part 1 of 4)

CITY OF PITTSBURG

AMENDED AGENDA
DECEMBER 16, 2024

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER
65 CIVIC AVENUE, PITTSBURG, CA

CANCELLED - SPECIAL MEETING

PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL

REGULAR MEETING
7:00 P.M.

CITY COUNCIL

HOUSING AUTHORITY

PITTSBURG ARTS AND COMMUNITY FOUNDATION

PITTSBURG POWER COMPANY

SOUTHWEST PITTSBURG GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT II

SUCCESSOR AGENCY

PRESIDING
Jelani Killings, Mayor/Chair
Dionne Adams, Vice-Mayor/Chair
Angelica Lopez, Council Member/Board Member
Shanelle Scales-Preston, Council Member/Board Member
Juan Antonio Banales, Council Member/Board Member
FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY:

S.L. Floyd, Housing Authority Member
Annie Hill Herring, Housing Authority Member
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pittsburg City Council regular meetings are held the first and third Mondays of each month at 7:00 p.m. The Housing Authority meets in conjunction with the City Council on the third Monday of each month. The Pittsburg City Council meets regularly in the Council Chamber at 65 Civic Avenue, unless otherwise noted above. The City Council also sits as the Board of Directors of several other City agencies. The stipends for all agency members conform to state statutes governing compensation amounts.

All other Agencies meet on an as needed basis and will be listed above if applicable. Copies of the open session agenda packets, which are distributed to the City Council, are on file in the office of the City Clerk, 65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg, California, and are available for public inspection, beginning 72 hours in advance, during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except from noon to 1:00 p.m. and City holidays). The agenda and reports are also located on the City’s website at www.pittsburgca.gov. Additionally, if any reports or documents, which are public records, are distributed to the City Council less than 72 hours before the meeting, those reports and documents will also be available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office and on the day of the meeting in the Council Chamber at the public counter area below the dais. 1 CANCELLED - SPECIAL MEETING FOR A PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL

THIS ITEM WILL BE CONTINUED TO A DATE TO BE DETERMINED

1. Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve a Use Permit, Design Review and Variance, and Adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Linde Inc.

Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project (AP-23-0046) On February 27, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.10243, granting approval for 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).

On March 7, 2024, Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (SAFER CA), pursuant to PMC 18.18.060, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s determination.
7:00 PM - CONVENE IN OPEN SESSION FOR REGULAR MEETING

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

CITY MANAGER REPORTS/REMARKS
The City Manager may make brief announcements or informal comments at this time and brief the Council on items of interest. (No Action Required)

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Members of the audience who wish to address the City Council or Agency Boards on issues that are not scheduled for the agenda and on any items listed as part of the Consent Calendar should complete a Speaker's Card available at the dais. Please read the card carefully in order to fill out the card properly.

Submit the completed card to the City Clerk before the item is called, preferably before the meeting begins. Individuals will be given three minutes to address the Council unless additional time is allowed as provided for spokespersons. Prior to speaking, each member of the public shall state their name and business and City of residence in a clear and audible tone of voice. (No Action Required)

COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council Members may make a report on their committee assignments at this time. (see attached list of adhoc committees and other public agencies in which Council members participate). (No Action Required)

PUBLIC HEARING

2. 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
Contra Costa Waste Service, Inc.(Operator) operates the Recycling Center and Transfer Station (RCTS) on Loveridge Road under an Exclusive Operating 2 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.

3. Adoption of a City Council 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
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.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
City Council/Agency Members may make any conflict of interest declarations pertaining to Consent Calendar items at this time.

CONSIDERATION

4. Adoption of a City Council Minute Order Directing the Process on Filling One Vacant City Council Seat
A general municipal election was held in the City of Pittsburg, California, on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, as required by law. The Contra Costa County Elections Department (County) has certified its canvassing of the votes and Councilmember Shanelle Scales-Preston has been elected to serve as Contra Costa County Supervisor for District 5, which will result in one vacant seat on the Pittsburg City Council upon her resignation. Staff is seeking direction from City Council on how to fill the vacancy.

COMBINED CITY COUNCIL, PITTSBURG ARTS AND COMMUNITY FOUNDATION,

PITTSBURG POWER COMPANY, SOUTHWEST PITTSBURG GHAD II AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY CONSENT CALENDAR

5. Minutes of November 18, 2024

6. Receive and File Report on the Review of Development Impact Fees Received by the City of Pittsburg that are Subject to AB 1600 Reporting Requirements AB 1600 (Government Code Sections 66000–66008) requires cities to justify and account for developer fees which they enact, increase or impose as a condition of new development for the purposes of financing “public facilities and improvements.” AB 1600 also requires an annual review of the developer fees that 3 have been collected and spent during the previous year. This report fulfills the AB 1600 requirements.

7. Adoption of a Successor Agency Minute Order Approving the July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026 Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule
The Successor Agency for the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pittsburg (Successor Agency) has prepared its Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) for the period of July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026 (ROPS 25-26), pursuant to AB 26x1, also referred to as the “Dissolution Act”.

8. Adoption of a City Council Resolution to Authorize Application and Receipt of Program Funding from Senate District 7 for the Accessory Dwelling Unit Accelerator Program Grant
On September 7, 2024, Senator Glazer of Senate District 7 issued a Notice of Funding Availability for approximately $2.5 million dollars in one-time funds for the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Accelerator Program (“Program”) Grant. The purpose of the non-competitive funding is to provide financial assistance to encourage and facilitate the construction of ADUs throughout 15 cities in the East Bay located in Senate District 7. Staff is requesting authorization to apply for $190,406.96 in program funds designated for the City.

9. Adoption of a City Council Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a First Contract Amendment for the Consulting Service Agreement with Oliver John for the Baywalk Specific Plan Project
The proposed item would authorize the City Manager to execute a first amendment to the consulting service agreement with Oliver John in an amount not to exceed $70,000 for contract planning `services related to the proposed Baywalk Specific Plan Project.

10. Adoption of a City Council Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a First Contract Amendment for the Consulting Service Agreement with Raney Planning and Management, Inc. for the Baywalk Specific Plan Project The proposed item would authorize the City Manager to execute a First Amendment to the consulting service agreement with Raney Planning and Management, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $147,750 for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) planning services related to the proposed Baywalk Specific Plan Project.

11. Adoption of a City Council Resolution Granting an Easement to Pacific Gas & Electric to Provide Service for Project 3080-Pittsburg Premier Fields Project 3080-Pittsburg Premiere Fields (the Project) requires electric, gas, and communication facilities to power restrooms, lighting, and future site improvements. An easement to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is necessary to install, operate, and maintain the facilities needed to serve the site. 4 12. Adoption of a City Council Resolution to Accept U.S. Department of Transportation Safe Streets and Roads for All 2024 Planning and Demonstration Grant Funds and Allocate Local Matching Funds
The City has been awarded the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Planning and Demonstration Grant (the Grant) in the amount of $408,000 to update the Pittsburg Moves Active Transportation Plan and American with Disability Act (ADA) Transition Plan. If approved, the resolution will accept the grant funds and authorize the allocation of matching funds for a total approved project budget of $510,000.

13. Adoption of a City Council Resolution Accepting Project 8336-Americana Park Bypass Channel as Complete and Authorizing the City Engineer to File a Notice of Completion
Project 8336-Americana Park Bypass Channel (the “Project”) constructed a bypass channel to remediate the storm water floods on North Parkside Drive. This resolution will accept the construction contract as complete and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion.

14. Adoption of a City Council Resolution to Amend the Master Pay Schedule to Include Amendments to the Seasonal Salary Schedule and Previously Approved Positions and Compensation
Effective January 1, 2025, the California minimum wage will increase from $16.00 per hour to $16.50 per hour. As the seasonal salary schedule presently has wages below the minimum, the City is required to increase the salaries affected by the State’s new minimum wage and update the salary schedule to comply with CalPERS’ interpretation of the requirements of California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5 by amending the single master pay schedule.

15. Adoption of a City Council Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Fourth Contract Amendment for a Consulting Service Agreement with 4LEAF, Inc. for Building Inspector and Chief Building Official On-call Services The proposed item would authorize the execution of the Fourth Amendment in an amount not to exceed $570,000. This amount would allocate an additional $120,000 to the existing contract amount of $450,000 for Building Inspector and Chief Building Official on-call services.

16. Adoption of a Pittsburg Power Company Resolution Adopting the 2023 Power Content Label to the California Energy Commission
The Pittsburg Power Company (PPC), in compliance with the State law (Public Utilities Code 398.1(b)), is disclosing both the power sources portfolio information and comparison to California’s total system power mix on an annual Power Content Label (PCL). For public agencies submitting board resolutions as attestation, in lieu of a requirement to provide a report from an auditor, the Board of Directors must attest to and adopt the PCL.
5 COUNCIL REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Council Members may request items to be considered for future agendas. An item will only be brought forward with a majority vote and will appear on a future agenda with staff recommendations for further Council consideration.

COUNCIL MEMBER REMARKS
Council Members may make brief announcements or informal comments at this time. (No Action Required) ADJOURNMENT TO JANUARY 6, 2025
6 NOTICE TO PUBLIC

GENERAL INFORMATION
Copies of the open session agenda packets, as distributed to the City Council, are on file in the office of the City Clerk, 65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg, California, and are available for public inspection, beginning 72 hours in advance, during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except City holidays). Full agenda packets are also located on the City’s website at www.pittsburgca.gov. If any reports or documents, which are public records, are distributed to the City Council less than 72 hours before the meeting, those reports or documents will be available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office and on the day of the meeting in the Council Chamber at the public counter area below the dais.

SPEAKER’S CARD
Members of the audience who wish to address the City Council on issues that are not scheduled for the agenda and on any items listed as part of the agenda should complete a Speaker’s Card available at the dais. Please read the card carefully in order to fill out the card properly. Submit the completed card to the City Clerk before the item is called, preferably before the meeting begins. Individuals will be given up to three minutes to address the Council unless additional time is allowed as provided for spokespersons. Speakers are not permitted to yield their time to another speaker. Prior to speaking, each member of the public shall state their name and business and City of residence in a clear and audible tone of voice. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action may be taken by the City Council on items not already scheduled on the agenda; however, the City Council may refer your comments/concerns to staff or request that the item be placed on a future agenda.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Persons who wish to speak on Public Hearings listed on the agenda will be heard when the Public Hearing is opened, except on Public Hearing items previously heard and closed to public comment. After the public has commented, the item is closed to public comment and brought to the Council/Agency level for discussion and action. Further comment from the audience will not be received unless requested by the Council/Agency.

There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in the Superior Court to certain City administrative decisions and orders which require a hearing by law, the receipt of evidence, and the exercise of discretion. The 90-day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6). Further, if you challenge an action taken by the City Council in court, you may be limited, by California law, including but not limited to Government Code Section 65009, to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council prior to or at the public hearing. The City Council may be requested to reconsider a decision if the request is made prior to the next City Council meeting, regardless of whether it is a regular or special meeting.

NOTICE TO THE DISABLED AND VISUALLY OR HEARING IMPAIRED In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Pittsburg will provide special assistance for disabled residents. Upon request, an agenda for any meeting shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats. The Council Chamber is equipped with sound amplifier units for use by the hearing impaired. The units operate in conjunction with the Chamber’s sound system. You may request the sound amplifier from the City Clerk for personal use during Council meetings. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, or are requesting a specially formatted agenda, please contact the City Clerk at (925) 252-4850. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting or provide the requested agenda format. (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II)

DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT
The Council requests that you observe the order and decorum of our Council Chamber by turning off or setting to vibrate all cellular telephones and electronic devices, and that you refrain from making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks. Boisterous and disruptive behavior while the Council is in session, and the display of signs in a manner which violates the rights of others or prevents others from watching or fully participating in the Council meeting, is a violation of our Municipal Code and any person who engages in such conduct can be ordered to leave the Council Chamber by the Mayor.

LIVE MEDIA BROADCASTING ADVISEMENT
City Council meetings are webcast live on the City’s website at www.pittsburgca.gov on the Agendas and Live Meetings page. Past meetings and approved minutes are also archived on that webpage. Watch the live meeting via the City’s webcast (www.pittsburgca.gov - Agendas and Live Meetings), on Comcast Channel 24 Delta TV, AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 Delta TV. Contact the City Clerk’s office at (925) 252-4850 for more information 7 City Council Agency/Liaison/Subcommittee Assignments as of June 17, 2024

OUTSIDE AGENCY BOARDS COUNCIL MEMBER(S) TYPE MEETS TIME STAFF ABAG Dionne Adams / Jelani Killings Alternate Standing Annual G. Evans Delta Diablo* Juan Banales / Shanelle Scales-Preston Alternate Standing 2nd Wednesday 4:30 PM J. Samuelson East Co. Co. County Habitat Conservancy Angelica Lopez / Juan Banales Alternate Standing 4th Monday
Bi-Monthly 2:00 PM J. Davis
East County Water Management Juan Banales / Jelani Killings Alternate Standing Annual J. Samuelson MCE Clean Energy Board Shanelle Scales-Preston / Angelica Lopez Alternate Standing Quarterly 7:00 PM D. Buchanan TRANSPLAN / ECCRFFA Shanelle Scales-Preston / Juan Banales Alternate Standing 2nd Thursday 6:30 PM J. Samuelson Tri-Delta Transit (2 reps)** Shanelle Scales-Preston & Dionne Adams / Jelani Killings Alternate Standing 4th Wednesday 4:00 PM J. Samuelson

LIAISON TO COUNCIL MEMBER(S) TYPE MEETS TIME STAFF
East Bay League of California Cities Shanelle Scales-Preston / Jelani Killings Alternate Standing 3rd Thursday G. Evans Los Medanos Health Advisory Committee Shanelle Scales-Preston & Jelani Killings Ad Hoc As needed M. Aliotti Mayor’s Conference Juan Banales / Jelani Killings Alternate Standing 1st Thursday 6:30 PM G. Evans Pittsburg Police Activities League (PAL) Shanelle Scales-Preston & Angelica Lopez / Dionne Adams Alternate Standing Monthly S. Albanese School Districts Committee (2x2) Jelani Killings & Angelica Lopez / Dionne Adams Alternate Standing Quarterly M. Aliotti

SUBCOMMITTEES COUNCIL MEMBER(S) TYPE MEETS TIME STAFF
Budget Sustainability Juan Banales & Jelani Killings Ad Hoc As needed G. Evans Community and Economic Development Jelani Killings & Dionne Adams / Juan Banales Alternate Standing 2nd Wednesday 5:00 PM J. Davis Facilities Rental and Usage Jelani Killings & Dionne Adams Ad Hoc As needed G. Evans Finance Management Juan Banales & Jelani Killings / Shanelle Scales-Preston Alternate Standing 3rd Friday 4:00 PM P. Rodrigues Government Performance Juan Banales & Jelani Killings Ad Hoc 4th Friday 4:00 PM J. Brizel Green Empowerment Zone Dionne Adams/ Jelani Killings Alternate Standing 3rd Friday Bi-
monthly 9:30 AM J. Davis
Infrastructure and Transportation Shanelle Scales-Preston & Dionne Adams / Juan Banales Alternate Standing 4th Thursday 5:30 PM J. Samuelson Life Enrichment Dionne Adams & Angelica Lopez / Shanelle Scales-Preston Alternate Standing 3rd Wednesday 5:30 PM K. Simonton Pittsburg Arts and Community Foundation Shanelle Scales-Preston & Jelani Killings Standing As needed K. Simonton Public Safety Shanelle Scales-Preston & Angelica Lopez / Jelani Killings Alternate Standing 1st Wednesday 5:30 PM S. Albanese Tobacco, Cannabis, Alcohol Policy Review Shanelle Scales-Preston & Jelani Killings Ad Hoc As needed G. Evans *Stipend of $170 per month
**Stipend of $100 per month 8

OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
65 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg, CA 94565
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Garrett Evans, City Manager
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve a Use Permit, Design Review and Variance, and Adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Linde Inc. Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project (AP-23-0046)
MEETING DATE: December 16, 2024

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On February 27, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.10243, granting approval for 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).

On March 7, 2024, Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (SAFER CA), pursuant to PMC 18.18.060, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s determination.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. All on-site project improvements and upgrades to the existing facilities will be borne by the project applicant.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council open the appeal hearing, take comment from the appellant (Safer California), the project proponent (Linde Inc.) and the public, close the appeal hearing. Following close of the appeal hearing, the City Council may consider and take one of the following actions:

1. City Council adopt a resolution denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the project; or

2. City Council adopt a resolution to uphold the appeal, reverse the Planning Commission’s approval of the project, and deny the project without prejudice. 9 BACKGROUND
On February 27, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting on the proposed project, considered testimony, and voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 10243 granting approval for the 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).

On March 7, 2024, Adams Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo on behalf of SAFER CA, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s determination pursuant to PMC 18.18.060.

As required under PMC section 18.18.050, the City Council shall hear an appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission. The decision of the City Council is final. The City Council appeal hearing is conducted de novo pursuant to PMC section 18.18.060(D). The City Council hears the appeal as a new matter and is not bound by the evidence or testimony presented to the Planning Commission.

SUBCOMMITTEE FINDINGS
This item was not presented to a subcommittee.

STAFF ANALYSIS
Proposed Project:

The proposed Linde Inc. Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project, is a development project that would result in the expansion of its Northern California industrial gas market by building a new plant which will involve installation of an air separation unit system, including a distillation tower, heat exchanger cold box, storage tanks, air compressor and auxiliary equipment, at its existing facility located at 2000 Loveridge Road (“Project”). The new facility will expand Linde’s current production of liquid nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. No additional or new products will be produced. The liquid products will be distributed via truck to the San Francisco Bay Area market, the Central Valley, and into nearby states. The proposed plant expansion area is an approximately 2.5-acre undeveloped portion of a 31.55-acre parcel.

The Union Pacific Railroad and Pittsburg-Antioch Highway are to the north and SR 4 HWY is to the south and Loveridge Road is to the east.

Additional details related to General Plan and Zoning compliance, as well as the required findings to approve the project, and a detailed staff analysis can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 27, 2024 (Attachment 10).

Environmental:

On October 13, 2023, staff circulated the project Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Attachment 1 Exhibits A&B) for a 30-day public review and comment. Comments were received from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

Public Notice: On or prior to December 6, 2024, notice of the December 16, 2024, public hearing was posted at City Hall, near the proposed project site, and on the ‘Public Notices’ section of the City’s website; was delivered for posting at the Pittsburg Library; and was mailed via first class or electronic mail to the applicant, to the property owner, to owners of 10 property located within 300 feet of the proposed pilot project site, to local service agencies expected to provide services to the building, and to individuals who had previously filed written request for such notice, in accordance with Pittsburg Municipal Code (PMC) section

18.14.010 and Government Code section 65091. The notice was also posted on www.nextdoor.com (“Nextdoor”) and was sent directly to all subscribed residents in the adjacent Nextdoor neighborhoods.

SAFER CA Appeal
On March 7, 2024, Adams Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo, on behalf of SAFER CA, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s determination pursuant to PMC 18.18.060. The appeal letter argues that the IS/MND is deficient in six respects, which mirror the comments outlined in the February 27, 2024 Adams Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo letter. The following is a summary of the six arguments outlined in the March 7, 2024, appeal letter are shown below, followed by a response of staff’s assessment of each issues raised:

Comment No. 1: “First, the IS/MND fails to analyze indirect operational emissions, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that those emissions are significant, and feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce those impacts.” Response No. 1: The air quality analysis within the IS/MND was prepared in accordance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines (2022).

Consistent with BAAQMD Guidance and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User Guide (2022), indirect emissions of criteria pollutants from off-site electricity generation facilities, such as natural gas power plants, are not quantified in CEQA air quality analyses and the BAAQMD thresholds of significance are not intended for comparison to such emissions.

Energy generating facilities and their associated direct emissions of criteria air pollutants are subject to their own environmental review and compliance and are subject to air quality permitting and the purchase of emissions offsets. Attributing these indirect emissions to an individual project would result in a “double counting” of emissions. Furthermore, there is no accurate way to trace the source of electricity being supplied to a given facility at a given time or the location at which such indirect emissions are being generated and emitted.

Comment No. 2: “Second, the IS/MND lacks substantial evidence to conclude health risks are less than significant because it relies on clearly erroneous meteorological data.” Response No. 2: The air quality analysis and health risk assessment within the IS/MND was prepared in accordance with BAAQMD, OEHHA, and CARB Guidance. All methodologies and assumptions were clearly outlined and provided in the Health Risk Assessment Technical Report provided in Appendix B of the IS/MND.

BAAQMD does not provide specific instruction as to which meteorological data to use in a dispersion model, other than to note the most appropriate station may not necessarily be the meteorological station closest to the project site. No data collected at a single station will fully capture localized weather phenomena representative of any project site.

The Pittsburg (Dow Chemical) meteorological data was not selected for the health risk assessment due to its location adjacent to the eastern Carquinez Strait. According to the BAAQMD’s 2012 CEQA Guidelines, there are many industrial facilities with substantial air pollutant emissions in the Carquinez Strait area, yet the pollution potential of this area is often moderated by these high wind speeds. Considering the nearest sensitive receptors to 11 the west of the Project Site, a more conservative analysis was performed by selecting meteorological data from a station that experiences lower speeds and where the prevailing winds do not overwhelmingly come from the west (Concord Buchanan Field monitoring station). According to the BAAQMD’s 2012 CEQA Guidelines, monitoring stations in Concord report annual average wind speeds of 5 mph. As shown in the Concord Buchanan Field wind rose in the February 27, 2024, Comment Letter (Exhibit A, Figure 3 on page 13), the highest wind speeds come from the south. Thus, the meteorological data from the Buchanan Field monitoring station was selected to provide a more conservative assessment of the effects of Project emissions to the closest sensitive receptors to the west.

As outlined in the IS/MND (page 23) and Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B, page 12), cancer risk levels attributed to the Project was roughly one percent of the significance for construction and roughly 10 to 15 percent of the significance threshold for operations. Using the meteorological data from the Dow Chemical meteorological station would result in even lower risk levels due to increased wind speeds and greater dispersion of pollutants away from the closest sensitive receptors.

Comment No. 3: “Third, the IS/MND fails to analyze acute hazard risks and impacts to on- site construction workers from diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions during Project construction.”
Response No. 3: This comment was addressed in the City’s response to the December 12, 2023, SAFER CA Comment Letter. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has developed reference exposure levels (REL) to determine potential non-cancer health impacts from toxic air contaminants (TAC). An REL is used as an indicator of potential non-cancer health impacts and is defined as the concentration at which no adverse non-cancer health effects are anticipated.

REL’s incorporate uncertainty factors to help ensure that the REL is protective for nearly all individuals, including sensitive populations.1 However, OEHHA has not developed an acute REL for diesel particulate matter (DPM); therefore, acute DPM impacts were not evaluated in the Health Risk Assessment and IS/MND. This is consistent with OEHHA Guidance and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) HARP2 Air Dispersion Modeling Program that was used in development of the proposed Project’s Health Risk Assessment summarized in the air quality section of the Draft IS/MND and found in Appendix B of the IS/MND.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) local risk and hazards significance thresholds apply to sensitive receptors only. The Project’s Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B of the IS/MND) analyzed potential health impacts from construction and operation of the Project on nearby residents and off-site workers. As shown on page 23 and 24 (Tables 6 and 7) of the Draft IS/MND, the Project would not expose nearby sensitive receptors or off-site workers to significant health risks as the Project would be below all BAAQMD health risk significance thresholds.

Comment No. 4: “Fourth, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that cancer and hazard risks from construction DPM are significant.”
Response No. 4: As noted above in Response No. 2, if a revised Health Risk Assessment was prepared with Dow Chemical meteorological data instead of Concord Buchanan Field meteorological data and all other assumptions remained the same as in the Health Risk 1 OEHHA, Air Toxics Hot Spots, Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015, Accessed at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf 12 Assessment prepared for the IS/MND (Appendix B of the IS/MND), risk levels would be reduced due to greater wind speed and directionality away from the nearest sensitive receptors to the west.

As noted above in Response No. 3, the Project’s Health Risk Assessment analyzed potential health impacts from construction and operation of the Project on nearby residents and off-site workers. As shown on page 23 and 24 (Tables 6 and 7) of the Draft IS/MND, the Project would not expose nearby sensitive receptors or off-site workers to significant health risks as the Project would be below all BAAQMD health risk significance thresholds.

Comment No. 5: “Fifth, the IS/MND fails to analyze operational hazards, including the impact of potential air contaminants on safe operation and impacts from loading and transportation of liquified products.”
Response No. 5: The proposed Project is a facility expansion of Linde’s production of liquid nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, and related loading and transportation of such liquified products. The existing facility has an Emergency Action Plan in place that would be extended to the facility expansion under the proposed Project, as required by OSHA and CalOSHA. The Emergency Action Plan is reviewed and updated annually, and employees undergo annual training. The Emergency Action Plan is posted in the control room and front office and will be posted in new locations associated with the proposed Project.

The February 27, 2024, comment letter references three air separation accidents that occurred in China over the last approximately 30 years. No evidence of an accident could be found for facilities anywhere else in the world. The existing facility has and the future expanded facility under the Project will have an automated system in place that alarms any time there is an increase in pressure
Trace contaminants in the air pose no operational hazards to the Linde’s air separation equipment or process, as demonstrated by Linde’s operation at the site since 1959. Trace contaminants are removed by pre-purifier vessels and are returned to the ambient air.

Comment No. 6: “Sixth, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that ambient air contaminants could affect safe operation and feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the risk of accidents.”
Response No. 6: As noted above in Response No. 5, the proposed Project is a facility expansion of Linde’s production of liquid nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, and related loading and transportation of such liquified products. Trace contaminants are removed by prepurifier vessels and are returned to the ambient air.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Proposed Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding Approval of the Project a. Exhibit A – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b. Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

2. Proposed Resolution Upholding the Appeal and Denying Approval of the Project without Prejudice

3. Comment Letters and Responses

4. Project Plans

5. Existing Conditions Photos

6. Map of Surrounding Land Uses
13 7. DRDG Consistency Table

8. Development Standard Consistency Table

9. Notice of Public Hearing/Vicinity Map

10.Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 27, 2024

11.Planning Commission Resolution No. 10243

12.Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2024

13.March 7, 2024 – Appellant Letter
Report Prepared By: Maurice Brenyah-Addow, Senior Planner 14 Resolution No.24- Page 1 of 7 December 16, 2024

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

Denying an Appeal and Upholding the )
Planning Commission’s Decision to )
Approve a Use Permit, Design Review )
And Variance, and Adopt an Initial Study)
And Mitigated Negative Declaration and ) RESOLUTION NO. 24- Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program)
For the Linde Inc. Oakstone Northern )
California Expansion Project )
(AP-23-0046) )
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2023, Eugene Gordon of SGE Engineers, on behalf of Linde Inc, filed Planning Application No. 23-0046, requesting approval of: 1) Use Permit, 2) Design Review and 3) Variance, application for the Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project at Linde’s existing facility located at 2000 Loveridge Road; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is governed by the applicable goals and policies of the Pittsburg General Plan and the Pittsburg Municipal Code (PMC); and WHEREAS, the project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code 21000-21189) and the State CEQA guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387); and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the State CEQA Guidelines (Public Resources Code section 21080).

Pursuant to the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study was prepared for the project. Based on the analysis in the study, the Zoning Administrator determined that potentially significant effects of the project could be lessened through specified mitigations, and subsequently, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 2023, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) was distributed to the public for a 30-day review, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15105(b). Public distribution of the NOI consisted of delivery to the County Clerk’s Office, posting on the City’s website, and posting at the subject property in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15072; and
WHEREAS, on or prior to February 16, 2024, in accordance with Government Code section 65091 and Pittsburg Municipal Code (PMC) section 18.14.020, a “Notice of Public Hearing” for the February 27, 2024, public hearing on this item was posted at City Hall and at and near the project site; was delivered to the Pittsburg Library; was mailed via first class mail to the applicant and property owner, to owners of property located within 300 feet of the project site, and to local service agencies anticipated to provide services to the business; and was mailed via first class mail or email to individuals and organizations who had previously filed written request for such notice. A copy of the notice was also placed 15 Resolution No.24- Page 2 of 7 December 16, 2024 on the “Public Notices” page of the city website the same day. The notice was also posted on www.nextdoor.com (“Nextdoor”); and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting on the proposed project, considered testimony, and voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 10243 granting approval for the 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); and
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2024, Adams Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo on behalf of SAFER CA, filed an appeal of the Commission’s determination pursuant to PMC

18.18.060; and
WHEREAS, on or prior to December 6, 2024, notice of the December 16, 2024, public hearing was posted at City Hall, near the proposed project site, and on the ‘Public Notices’ section of the city’s website; was delivered for posting at the Pittsburg Library; and was mailed via first class or electronic mail to the applicant, to the property owner, to owners of property located within 300 feet of the proposed pilot project site, to local service agencies expected to provide services to the building, and to individuals who had previously filed written request for such notice, in accordance with Pittsburg Municipal Code (PMC) section 18.14.010 and Government Code section 65091. The notice was also posted on www.nextdoor.com (“Nextdoor”) and was sent directly to all subscribed residents in the adjacent Nextdoor neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve a Use Permit, Design Review and Variance, and Adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Linde inc. Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project (AP-23-0046(UP, DR, VA); and
WHEREAS, documents and other materials constituting the record of the proceedings upon which the City’s decision and its findings are based, are located at the City of Pittsburg Planning Division, located at 65 Civic Avenue in Pittsburg, California 94565.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council finds and determines as follows:

Section 1. Recitals
The recitals set forth above are true and correct statements and are incorporated herein.

Section 2. Findings

1. Based on the City Council Staff Report dated December 16, 2024, and entitled, “Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve a Use Permit, Design Review and Variance, and Adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation 16 Resolution No.24- Page 3 of 7 December 16, 2024 Monitoring Reporting Program for the Linde Inc. Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project AP-23-0046 (UP, DR, VA). AP-24-0023 (AP).”, and based on all written and oral testimony presented at the meeting, the City Council finds that:
a. All recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. b. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B to this resolution and for the project was prepared in compliance with Government Code Section 15120, et. Seq and the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained therein.

Use Permit Findings PMC section 18.16.040:

A. The proposed project will be in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of the land use district in which it is located and is appropriate to the specific location, in that the proposed heavy manufacturing activity is a conditionally permitted use in the IG District. It constitutes an expansion of the existing Linde air separation plant. It is in keeping with other industrial uses in the immediate surroundings.

B. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the City, in that upon compliance with applicable conditions of approval, it will meet health and safety requirements of the Pittsburg Community Development Department, the Contra Costa Fire Protection District, Contra Costa Health Services – Hazardous Materials Programs, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board as well as the habitat conservation requirements of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).

C. The proposed project will not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the City, in that it is located an expansion of an existing use in a general industrial area.

D. The proposed project will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base and other substantial revenue sources within the City, in that the project will utilize the site for an industrial purpose consistent with its General Industrial zoning.

E. The proposed project will be consistent with site’s ‘Industrial’ General Plan land use designation, in that the designation is intended to provide sites for manufacturing uses. The project is also consistent with the General Plan economic development objectives (General Plan, page 6-2) which support retention and expansion of the City’s manufacturing base and encourage employment growth.

F. The proposed project will not create a nuisance or enforcement problem within the neighborhood, in that it will be required to meet performance standards, as set forth by PMC chapter 18.82, which are intended to address ongoing safety, noise, odor, and maintenance concerns.
17 Resolution No.24- Page 4 of 7 December 16, 2024 G. The proposed project will not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood, in that the project will consist of air separation equipment similar to other equipment installations at the Linde plant.

H. The proposed project will not create a demand for public services within the City beyond that of the ability of the City to meet in light of taxation and spending restraints imposed by law, in that the project will have access to existing infrastructure, including fire, police, and water.

I. The proposed project will not be inconsistent with the City’s approved funding priorities, in that it does not require any City funding.

Design Review Findings PMC section 18.36.220(A):

A. The planning commission shall consider the following aspects of each application to the extent that they are applicable to the proposal:

1. Maximum height, lot coverage and setbacks (if not covered in the zoning ordinance);
The project requires a height variance to allow a 137-foot-tall tower where 75 feet maximum is required. The variance findings support granting the requested variance.

2. Overall mass and bulk of structures;
The overall mass and bulk of the proposed structures is consistent with the rest of the structures at the Linde plant and surrounding industrial plants.

3. Special features of the development, such as walls, screen, towers and signs; The special features of the development such as towers are consistent with the Linde plant and surrounding industrial plants.

4. Effective concealment and sound attenuation of exposed mechanical and electrical equipment; The site perimeter will be fenced to minimize public view, however the scale of the installations are industrial in nature so some supporting structures and piping will be reasonably visible.

5. Colors and materials on the exterior face of building or structure, striving for a limited number of colors and materials for each project; The proposed colors are limited to white, blue and silver.

6. Avoidance of repetition of identical entities whenever possible; The various equipment are varied in sizes and shapes and interconnected with pipes and support structures that minimize monotony in appearance.

7. Harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments, avoiding both excessive variety and monotonous repetition, but allowing similarity of style, if warranted;
18 Resolution No.24- Page 5 of 7 December 16, 2024 The proposed new installations are sited and organized in an orderly manner and will be harmonious with the existing Linde plant installation and adjacent industrial sites.

8. Pleasing landscaping which incorporates existing landscaping and terrain as a complement to the structure, using plants which thrive in the Pittsburg climate and which are large enough in size to be effective.

A condition of approval requires attractive landscaping around the perimeter of the site to minimize visual impacts on adjacent properties.

B. The standards to be used by the planning commission in reviewing an application:

1. The structure conforms with good taste, good design and in general contributes to the character and image of the City as a place of beauty, spaciousness, balance, taste, fitness, broad vistas, and high quality, in that the proposed new installations are sited and organized in an orderly manner. The various equipment are varied in sizes and shapes and interconnected with pipes and support structures that minimize monotony in appearance. The site perimeter will also be fenced to minimize public view.

2. The structure will be protected against exterior and interior noise, vibrations and other factors that may tend to make the environment less desirable, in that the project would be required to meet applicable performance standards to minimize potential noise and vibration impacts.

3. The exterior design and appearance of the structure is not of inferior quality as to cause the nature of the neighborhood to materially depreciate in appearance and value in that, the proposed equipment have been designed to have sleek and less reflective finishes to minimize adverse visual impacts on the surroundings.

4. The structure is in harmony with proposed developments on land in the general area in that, the proposed equipment are similar to the other structures at the existing Linde plant site.

5. The application conforms with the criteria set forth in any applicable City adopted Development Review Design Guidelines (DRDG), in that the proposed plant expansion has been analyzed in accordance with the applicable DRDGs and found to be conforming.

Variance Findings, PMC Section 18.16.050
A. Because of special circumstances concerning the subject property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning regulations deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same land use district. As such, the project expansion area is relatively flat with limited vegetation on the site fringes and some wetlands that limit the extent of the development footprint on the 2.5-acre portion of the parcel. This

2.5-acre project area constrains the horizontal orientation of the proposed 137-foot 19 Resolution No.24- Page 6 of 7 December 16, 2024 tall “Rectification Cold Box” tower from the property boundaries forcing the cold box and equipment to be more vertically stacked to avoid impacts on the wetlands and vegetation. This proposed layout and project design approach is intended to balance operational efficiency with preservation of the wetlands.

B. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege which is not generally available to other property in the vicinity and in the same land use district, in that the proposed variance request to allow for a 137-foot tall “Rectification Cold Box” tower where only 75 feet maximum is allowed not in isolation of its surroundings since it is an expansion of an existing air separation plant with similar towers for venting and separating essential industrial and commercial gases. There are similar towers with heights in excess of 75 feet at the plant and on other manufacturing plants in the IG zone in the project vicinity and therefore granting the height variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege which is not generally available to other property in the vicinity.

C. The variance substantially complies with the intent and purpose of the land use district to which the property is classified, in that the existing and proposed use is consistent with the IG zoning it allows the proposed plant to install an important tower that is essential for operations and similar to other towers in the vicinity.

D. In the case of a variance from open space regulations, the grant of a variance is consistent with Government Code Section 65911 and will not conflict with general plan policies governing orderly growth and development and the preservation and conservation of open space lands.

2. The staff report entitled, “Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve a Use Permit, Design Review and Variance, and Adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring Reporting Program for the Linde inc. Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project. AP-24-0023 (AP)”, is referenced hereto as additional support for the findings.

Section 3. Decision
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pittsburg hereby:

A. Denies Appeal Application No. AP-24-0023 and Upholds the Planning Commission’s approval and adoption of an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project Application No. AP-24-0046 (UP, DR, VA).

General Use Conditions

1. Indemnification: The applicant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and consultants from any and all administrative, legal or equitable actions or other proceedings instituted by any person challenging the validity of this project approval, subsequent project approval, 20 Resolution No.24- Page 7 of 7 December 16, 2024 or other action arising out of, or in connection with, this project approval. The parties shall cooperate in defending such action or proceeding. The parties shall use reasonable efforts to select mutually agreeable defense counsel but, if the parties cannot reach agreement, City may select its own legal counsel at applicant’s sole cost and expense. The applicant may select its own legal counsel to represent the applicant’s interests at the applicant’s sole cost and expense. The applicant shall pay for City's costs of defense, whether directly or by timely reimbursement to City on a monthly basis. Such costs shall include, but not be limited to, all court costs and attorneys' fees expended by City in defense of any such action or other proceeding, plus staff and City Attorney time spent responding to and defending the claim, action or proceeding.

2. Finality of Decision: This decision is final and cannot be further appealed. Anyone willing to challenge this decision must do so in court within 90 days of the date of this decision.

Section 4: Effective Date
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pittsburg on the 16th day of December 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAINED:

ABSENT:
__________________________
Jelani Killings, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Alice E. Evenson, City Clerk
21 Attachment 1a. – Exhibit A
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Available online at: Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 22 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project (AP-23-0046) 1 October 2023 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM – OAKSTONE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA EXPANSION PROJECT (AP-23-0046) Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off

AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The Applicant shall implement BAAQMD’s basic BMPs for construction- related fugitive dust, which include:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
• All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. • Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted wood chips, mulch, or gravel. • A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.

The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

City of Pittsburg Community
Development Department
During construction activities

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: As required by the HCP, the Project shall implement the following avoidance measures for potential effects on Burrowing Owl during construction:

1. Prior to any ground disturbance, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)/California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the study area for Burrowing Owls. The pre-construction survey shall establish the presence or absence of western burrowing owl and/or habitat features and evaluate use by owls in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines (California Department of Fish and Game, 1993).

On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 500-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify burrows and owls. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership shall not be required to be surveyed. Surveys should take place near sunrise or sunset in accordance with CDFW guidelines. All burrows or burrowing owls shall be identified and mapped. Surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to construction. During the breeding season (February 1– August 31), surveys shall document whether Burrowing Owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the non-breeding City of Pittsburg Community
Development Department in
coordination with the East
Contra Costa County Habitat
Conservancy
Prior to ground disturbance
and construction activities

23 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project (AP -23-0046) 2 October 2023 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM – OAKSTONE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA EXPANSION PROJECT (AP-23-0046) Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off season (September 1–January 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area. Survey results shall be valid only for the season (breeding or non-breeding) during which the survey is conducted.

2. If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1–August 31), the Project applicant shall avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by Project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance shall include establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone (described below). Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the non-breeding season (September 1– January 31), the Project applicant shall avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a buffer zone (described below).

3. If occupied burrows for Burrowing Owls are not avoided, passive relocation shall be implemented.

Owls shall be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 160-foot buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors shall be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation. The Project area shall be monitored daily for 1 week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows shall be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). Plastic tubing or a similar structure shall be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: As required by the HCP, the Project shall implement the following avoidance measures for potential effects on Golden Eagles during construction:

1. Prior to implementation of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey to establish whether an active golden eagle nest is present within the study area. If an occupied nest is present, minimization requirements and construction monitoring shall be required, as detailed below.

2. Construction activities shall be prohibited within 0.5 mile of active nests. Nests can be built and active at almost any time of the year, although mating and egg incubation occurs late January through August, with peak activity in March through July. If site-specific conditions or the nature of the construction activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer could be appropriate or that a larger buffer should be implemented, the Implementing Entity shall coordinate with CDFW/USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size.

3. Construction monitoring shall ensure that no construction activities occur within the buffer zone established around an active nest. Construction monitoring shall ensure that direct effects to Golden Eagles are avoided.

City of Pittsburg Community
Development Department in
coordination with the East
Contra Costa County Habitat
Conservancy
Prior to ground disturbance
and construction activities

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: As required by the HCP, the Project shall implement the following avoidance measures for potential effects on Swainson’s Hawks during construction:

1. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities that occurs during the nesting season (March 15–September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey no more than 1 month prior to construction to establish whether Swainson’s hawk nests within 1,000 feet of the Project City of Pittsburg Community
Development Department in
coordination with the East
Contra Costa County Habitat
Conservancy
Prior to ground disturbance
and construction activities

24 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project (AP-23-0046) 3 October 2023 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM – OAKSTONE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA EXPANSION PROJECT (AP-23-0046) Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off site are occupied. If potentially occupied nests within 1,000 feet are off the Project site, then their occupancy shall be determined by observation from public roads or by observations of Swainson’s hawk activity (e.g., foraging) near the Project site. If nests are occupied, minimization measures and construction monitoring are required (see below).

2. During the nesting season (March 15–September 15), covered activities within 1,000 feet of occupied nests or nests under construction shall be prohibited to prevent nest abandonment. If site-specific conditions or the nature of the covered activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer could be used, the Implementing Entity shall coordinate with CDFW/USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size.

3. If young fledge prior to September 15, covered activities can proceed normally. If the active nest site is shielded from view and noise from the project site by other development, topography, or other features, the Project applicant can apply to the Implementing Entity for a waiver of this avoidance measure. Any waiver must also be approved by USFWS and CDFW. While the nest is occupied, activities outside the buffer can take place.

4. All active nest trees shall be preserved on site, if feasible. Nest trees, including non-native trees, lost to covered activities shall be mitigated by the Project proponent according to the requirements below in Mitigation Measure BIO-4.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: If Project-related disturbance activities commence anytime during the nesting/breeding season of native bird species potentially nesting on or near the study area (typically February through August in the Project region), a pre-construction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within two weeks of the commencement of construction activities.

If active nests are found in areas that could be directly affected or are within 300 feet of disturbance activities and would be subject to prolonged construction-related noise, a no-disturbance buffer zone shall be created around active nests during the breeding season or until a qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged. The size of the buffer zones and types of construction activities restricted within them shall be a minimum of 50 feet, and may be enlarged by considering factors such as the following:
• Noise and human disturbance levels at the construction site at the time of the survey and the noise and disturbance expected during the construction activity; • Distance and amount of vegetation or other screening between the construction site and the nest; and
• Sensitivity of individual nesting species and behaviors of the nesting birds.

City of Pittsburg Community
Development Department in
coordination with the East
Contra Costa County Habitat
Conservancy
Prior to ground disturbance
and construction activities

Mitigation Measure BIO-5: If Project activities take place during the Western red bat maternity roosting period between May 1 and August 31 (when pre‐flight/nursing young may be present), then a qualified biologist shall conduct a roosting habitat evaluation to assess potential roosting habitat in the study area.

If potential roosting habitat is identified in the roosting habitat evaluation, then a preconstruction maternity roost survey shall be conducted within 3 days of equipment staging or initial ground City of Pittsburg Community
Development Department in
coordination with the East
Contra Costa County Habitat
Conservancy
Prior to ground disturbance
and construction activities

25 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project (AP -23-0046) 4 October 2023 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM – OAKSTONE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA EXPANSION PROJECT (AP-23-0046) Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off disturbance. The survey will observe a 300-foot buffer around the Project footprint to determine if a maternity roost is present, and to identify and map potential maternity roost sites. If active maternity roost sites are found, then a 300‐foot no-disturbance buffer shall be observed around potential maternity roost sites. The buffer shall be maintained until bats have vacated the roost and Wildlife Agencies concur that the roost is vacant.

If Project activities take place during the winter months (November 1 through March 31), then a qualified biologist shall conduct a winter hibernaculum survey. If an active winter hibernaculum is found within 300 feet of the Project footprint, then a 300-foot no disturbance buffer shall be observed around the hibernaculum until the bats have vacated and the agencies concur that the hibernaculum is vacant.

Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct an aquatic resources delineation covering the Project area to confirm current wetland boundaries and ensure avoidance of these features. If the aquatic resources delineation concludes that development of the Project will not avoid the aquatic features present onsite, the Applicant shall do one of the following:
1) Redesign the Project site plan and/or temporary staging areas to avoid the aquatic features onsite; or
2) Obtain the applicable permit of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to fill the aquatic features necessary to develop the Project if redesigning the Project site plan is not feasible.

26 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project (AP-23-0046) 5 October 2023 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM – OAKSTONE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA EXPANSION PROJECT (AP-23-0046) Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off that will not entrap reptiles and amphibians. Erosion control blankets shall be used as a last resort because of their tendency to biodegrade slowly and trap reptiles and amphibians. Erosion-control measures will be placed between the outer edge of the buffer and the project site.
f. Fiber rolls used for erosion control will be certified as free of noxious weed seed. g. Seed mixtures applied for erosion control will not contain invasive nonnative species, and will be composed of native species or sterile nonnative species. h. Where feasible, stream crossings will be located in stream segments without riparian vegetation, and bridge footings will be built outside the stream banks (i.e., clear span structures).
i. Herbicide will not be applied within 100 feet of wetlands, ponds, streams, or riparian woodland/scrub; however, where appropriate to control serious invasive plants, herbicides that have been approved for use by EPA in or adjacent to aquatic habitats may be used as long as label instructions are followed and applications avoid or minimize impacts on covered species and their habitats. In seasonal or intermittent stream or wetland environments, appropriate herbicides may be applied during the dry season to control nonnative invasive species (e.g., yellow star-thistle). Herbicide drift should be minimized by applying the herbicide as close to the target area as possible.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If human remains or any associated funerary artifacts are discovered during construction, all work shall cease within the immediate vicinity of the discovery. In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5), the Contra Costa County Sheriff/Coroner must be contacted immediately. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will in turn appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD) to act as a tribal representative. The MLD will work with the Applicant and a qualified archaeologist to determine the proper treatment of the human remains and any associated funerary objects. Construction activities shall not resume until either the human remains are exhumed, or the remains are avoided via Project construction design change.

City of Pittsburg Community
Development Department
During ground disturbance
and construction activities

27 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Yolo Cold Storage Facility Project 6 December 2021
This page intentionally left blank
28 Resolution No.24- Page 1 of 3 December 16, 2024

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

Upholding an Appeal and Reversing the )
Planning Commission’s Decision to )
Approve a Use Permit, Design Review )
And Variance, and Adopt an Initial Study)
and Mitigated Negative Declaration and ) RESOLUTION NO. 24- Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program)
For the Linde Inc. Oakstone Northern )
California Expansion Project )
(AP-23-0046) Without Prejudice )
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2023, Eugene Gordon of SGE Engineers, on behalf of Linde Inc, filed Planning Application No. 23-0046, requesting approval of: 1) Use Permit, 2) Design Review and 3) Variance, application for the Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project at Linde’s existing facility located at 2000 Loveridge Road; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is governed by the applicable goals and policies of the Pittsburg General Plan and the Pittsburg Municipal Code (PMC); and WHEREAS, the project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code 21000-21189) and the State CEQA guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387); and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the State CEQA Guidelines (Public Resources Code section 21080). Pursuant to the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study was prepared for the project. Based on the analysis in the study, the Zoning Administrator determined that potentially significant effects of the project could be lessened through specified mitigations, and subsequently, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared; and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2023, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) was distributed to the public for a 30-day review, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15105(b). Public distribution of the NOI consisted of delivery to the County Clerk’s Office, posting on the City’s website, and posting at the subject property in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15072; and WHEREAS, on or prior to February 16, 2024, in accordance with Government Code section 65091 and Pittsburg Municipal Code (PMC) section 18.14.020, a “Notice of Public Hearing” for the February 27, 2024, public hearing on this item was posted at City Hall and at and near the project site; was delivered to the Pittsburg Library; was mailed via first class mail to the applicant and property owner, to owners of property 29 Resolution No.24- Page 2 of 3 December 16, 2024 located within 300 feet of the project site, and to local service agencies anticipated to provide services to the business; and was mailed via first class mail or email to individuals and organizations who had previously filed written request for such notice. A copy of the notice was also placed on the “Public Notices” page of the city website the same day. The notice was also posted on www.nextdoor.com (“Nextdoor”); and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting on the proposed project, considered testimony, and voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 10243 granting approval for the 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); and
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2024, Adams Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo on behalf of SAFER CA, filed an appeal of the Commission’s determination pursuant to PMC

18.18.060; and
WHEREAS, on or prior to December 6, 2024, notice of the December 16, 2024, public hearing was posted at City Hall, near the proposed project site, and on the ‘Public Notices’ section of the city’s website; was delivered for posting at the Pittsburg Library; and was mailed via first class or electronic mail to the applicant, to the property owner, to owners of property located within 300 feet of the proposed pilot project site, to local service agencies expected to provide services to the building, and to individuals who had previously filed written request for such notice, in accordance with Pittsburg Municipal Code (PMC) section 18.14.010 and Government Code section 65091. The notice was also posted on www.nextdoor.com (“Nextdoor”) and was sent directly to all subscribed residents in the adjacent Nextdoor neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, on December 16, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve a Use Permit, Design Review and Variance, and Adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Linde inc. Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project (AP-23-0046(UP, DR, VA); and
WHEREAS, documents and other materials constituting the record of the proceedings upon which the City’s decision and its findings are based, are located at the City of Pittsburg Planning Division, located at 65 Civic Avenue in Pittsburg, California 94565; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council finds and determines as follows:

Section 1. Recitals
The recitals set forth above are true and correct statements and are incorporated herein.
30 Resolution No.24- Page 3 of 3 December 16, 2024 Section 2. Findings
Based on the City Council Staff Report dated December 16, 2024, and entitled, “Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve a Use Permit, Design Review and Variance, and Adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Linde Inc. Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project AP-23-0046 (UP, DR, VA). AP-24-0023 (AP),” and based on all written and oral testimony presented at the meeting, the City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project is potentially inadequate, and pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resource Code Sections 20180[d]), there is potential evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an EIR is required in order to ensure the Planning Commission and/or City Council, as appropriate, can make the necessary findings for project approval contained within PMC sections 18.16.040, 18.36.220(A), and 18.16.050.

Section 3. Decision
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pittsburg hereby uphold Appeal Application No. AP-24-0023 and denies Application No.

AP-24-0046 (UP, DR, VA).

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pittsburg on the 16 th day of December 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAINED:

ABSENT:
__________________________
Jelani Killings, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Alice E. Evenson, City Clerk
31 P AGE RTC - 1

Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project
Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration

Response to Comments
January 18, 2023

This Response to Comments document contains comments received during the public review period of the Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).

BACKGROUND

The City of Pittsburg Planning Division, as lead agency, released the Draft IS/MND for public review beginning on October 13, 2023, and ending on November 13, 2023, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105. The Draft IS/MND and supporting documents were made available on the City’s website and by appointment during normal business hours at the City of Pittsburg Planning Division, located at 65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg, CA 94565. According to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15073 and 15074, the lead agency must consider the comments received during consultation and review periods together with the negative declaration. However, unlike with an Environmental Impact Report, comments received on a negative declaration are not required to be attached to the negative declaration, nor must the lead agency make specific written responses to public agencies. Nonetheless, the City has chosen to provide responses to the comments received on the Draft IS/MND. It is important to note that Comment Letter C listed below was received on December 12, 2023, well after the public review period closed on November 13, 2023.

Nevertheless, the City has included responses to Comment Letter C.

LIST OF COMMENTERS

The City received two comment letters during the public comment period on the Draft IS/MND for the proposed Project and one comment letter on December 12, 2023 (well after the public comment period was closed). The comment letters were authored by the following:

Letter A .............................................California Department of Transportation, November 9, 2023 Letter B .........................California Department of Toxic Substances Control, November 13, 2023 Letter C ...............................................Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, December 12, 2023

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

The Response to Comments below include responses to the comment letters submitted regarding the proposed project. The letters are numbered and bracketed with assigned comment numbers. The bracketed comment letters are followed by numbered responses corresponding to each bracketed comment. Where revisions to the Draft IS/MND text were made, new text is double underlined and deleted text is struck through.
32 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 4

OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov

November 9, 2023 SCH #: 2023100371
GTS #: 04-CC-2023-00728
GTS ID: 31140
Co/Rt/Pm: CC/4/24.35

Maurice Brenyah-Addow, Senior Planner
City of Pittsburg
65 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg, CA 94565

Re: Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project − Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
Dear Maurice Brenyah-Addow:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project.

We are committed to ensuring that impacts to the State’s multimodal transportation system and to our natural environment are identified and mitigated to support a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system.

The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following comments are based on our review of the October 2023 MND.

Project Understanding
The proposed project consists of a use permit, design review and variance application for an existing facility located at 2000 Loveridge Road in Pittsburg. This will result in the expansion of its Northern California industrial gas market by building a new plant which will involve installation of an air separation unit system, including a distillation tower, heat exchanger cold box, storage tanks, air compressor and auxiliary equipment, at its existing facility. It is in the vicinity of State Route (SR)-4.

Construction-Related Impacts
Potential impacts to the State Right-of-Way (ROW) from project-related temporary access points should be analyzed. Mitigation for significant impacts due to construction and noise should be identified. Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, please visit Caltrans Transportation Permits Letter A
A-1
33 Maurice Brenyah-Addow, Senior Planner
November 9, 2023

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” (link). Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to the State Transportation Network (STN).

Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.

Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans’ Right-of-Way (ROW) requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. As part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you may be asked by the Office of Encroachment Permits to submit a completed encroachment permit application package, digital set of plans clearly delineating Caltrans’ ROW, digital copy of signed, dated and stamped (include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, this comment letter, your response to the comment letter, and where applicable, the following items: new or amended Maintenance Agreement (MA), approved Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD), approved encroachment exception request, and/or airspace lease agreement. Your application package may be emailed to [email protected].

To obtain information about the most current encroachment permit process and to download the permit application, please visit Caltrans Encroachment Permits (link).

Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Llisel Ayon, Associate Transportation Planner, via [email protected]. For future early coordination opportunities or project referrals, please contact [email protected].

Sincerely,

YUNSHENG LUO
Branch Chief, Local Development Review
Office of Regional and Community Planning
c: State Clearinghouse
A-1
34 P AGE RTC - 3

LETTER 1: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NOVEMBER 9, 2023

Response to Comment A-1
Comment Noted. The comment provides an overview of the project and general permit and equitable access requirements.

35 SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
November 13, 2023
Maurice Brenyah-Addow
Senior Planner, City of Pittsburg Planning Division
65 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg, CA 94565
[email protected]
RE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) FOR THE OAKSTONE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA EXPANSION PROJECT, DATED OCTOBER 13, 2023 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 2023100371
Dear Maurice Brenyah-Addow:

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a MND for the Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project. The proposed project consists of a Use Permit, Design Review and Variance application at Linde’s existing facility located at 2000 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg, California 94565. The proposed development project will result in the expansion of its Northern California industrial gas market by building a new plant which will involve installation of an air separation unit system, including a distillation tower, heat exchanger cold box, storage tanks, air compressor and auxiliary equipment, at its existing facility. The new facility will expand current production of liquid nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. The property is located in the Industrial General Plan Land Use classification and General Industrial Zoning District (IG). The project also includes on-site circulation improvements to provide a 25-foot drive aisle through the parcel to the project site and expansion of the existing substation on the parcel near the entry/exit to Loveridge Road.

The project location is on the DTSC site Union Carbide, Pittsburg. Although the cleanup Letter B
B-1
36 Maurice Brenyah-Addow
November 13, 2023

Page 2 ends

status was certified in 1984, concentrations of contaminants were still elevated. Based on our project review, DTSC requests consideration of the following comments:

1. There may be unidentified environmental concerns at the site. DTSC recommends additional investigation and sampling (if necessary) before any groundbreaking activities commence.

2. DTSC recommends the preparation of a Soil Management Plan so there is a procedure in place if and when unforeseen contaminations are discovered.

3. If any work initiated as part of the proposed project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the imported materials be characterized according to DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material webpage.

DTSC believes the City of Pittsburg must address these comments to determine if any significant impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will occur and, if necessary, avoid significant impacts under CEQA. DTSC recommends the City of Pittsburg connect with our unit if any hazardous waste projects managed or overseen by DTSC are discovered.

DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like any clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via email for additional guidance.

Sincerely,
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
37 Maurice Brenyah-Addow
November 13, 2023

Page 3 ends

cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Ms. Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP – Permitting Division - CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
HWMP – Permitting Division - CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Isabella Roman
Environmental Scientist
SMRP – Cleanup Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Marikka Hughes, PG
Branch Chief, Berkeley
SMRP – Cleanup Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
38 P AGE RTC - 5

LETTER B: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, NOVEMBER 13, 2023

Response to Comment B-1
Comment Noted. The comment provides introductory information.

Response to Comment B-2
Subsequent to the October 13, 2023 publication of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project (proposed Project), the City of Pittsburg Planning Division (City) received a report for a limited soil sampling and analytical testing assessment at the Project site prepared by Baez Geotechnical Group (BGG), dated July 26, 2023. 1 The environmental assessment, consisting of soil sampling and laboratory testing for chemical constituents, was conducted in March 2023 in conjunction with BGG’s geotechnical investigation of the Project site. During the geotechnical drilling program, BGG field staff observed hydrocarbon odors in samples collected from (soil) Borings B2 and B5 at depths ranging from 0 to 3 feet below ground surface (bgs). Odors in Borings B6 and B7 were observed in the general drilling area and not in collected soil samples. BGG submitted the soil samples containing odors to a certified testing laboratory for analysis of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) (gasoline, diesel, and motor oil), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) and 17 California Title 22 metals including arsenic, chromium, lead, and vanadium. Laboratory results of the five odoriferous soil samples did not detect VOCs, SVOC’s, or gasoline. However, low concentrations [below California Regional Water Quality Control Board – San Francisco Region (RWQCB) Tier 1 Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs)] of diesel and motor oil were detected in nearly all soils samples [(maximum concentration of motor oil was 440 parts per million (ppm) and diesel was 12 ppm]. BGG concluded these compounds produced the odor that field staff observed in the soil samples. Arsenic was detected above the RWQCB Tier 1 ESLs and Commercial Land Use ESLs (2.8 and 5.8 ppm), but BGG reported that the concentrations are considered on the very low end of background concentrations occurring in regional parent bedrock and thus, were not a concern. Vanadium was detected above the RWQCB Tier 1 ESLs but well below the 5,800 ppm Commercial Land Use threshold. BGG concluded that the reported concentration of hydrocarbons and metals would not be a concern for the proposed site improvements.

BGG’s soil testing results indicate that low levels of metals, diesel, and motor oil may be present in shallow soils within certain areas of the Project site. The soil samples containing diesel and motor oil were collected in an area of a previous stockpile observed on historical photographs. Therefore, it is possible that grading for the proposed Project could encounter surface soils containing low levels of residual petroleum hydrocarbons and elevated metals. However, given the low concentrations detected, these soils would not represent a substantial hazard to site workers and, considering the proposed industrial land use and that the Project site would be covered with asphalt or cement, the risk of future human and environmental exposure is low. BGG ’s assessment did not provide evidence of a different or more severe site contamination condition compared with those identified in the Draft IS. No evidence was identified indicating a new or substantially more severe potentially significant impact. While no additional soil sampling is warranted, prior to project commencement, a Soil Management Plan, (SMP) as requested by DTSC and discussed below in Response to Comment B-3, would be implemented to address and remedy potentially contaminated soils encountered during Project site grading.

Other than the findings of the BGG limited environmental assessment, discussed above, there is no additional evidence of unidentified environmental concerns at the Project Site. While the CEC Phase I did identify Recognizable Environmental Conditions (RECs) at 2000 Loveridge Road, they were associated

1 Baez Geotechnical Group (BGG), Limited Soil Sampling and Analytical Testing of Soil with Detected Odor, Proposed Linde Air Separation Unit Facility Expansion, 2000 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg, California. Letter-report to Manuel Gonzales, Linde Engineering Americas. BGG Project No. G333.01. July 26, 2023. 39 P AGE RTC - 6

with the ditch dredging four decades ago and past removal of USTs, which evidence suggests did not occur on the Project site, but rather on other parts of the 2000 Loveridge Road property. The Draft IS/MND explains that while 2000 Loveridge Road is listed as having previous environmental concerns, the contaminated areas did not involve the Project site (page 58 of the Draft IS/MND). The soils excavated during the 1983 ditch dredging were removed, tested, and landfilled and thus, are not considered a potential source of contamination. The identified REC associated with offsite contaminants entering the Project site via the Caltrans runoff is an existing condition and any contaminants in the runoff would be confined to the ditch, which would not be disturbed by the Project and is not part of the Project.

Response to Comment B-3
The development of a Soil Management Plan (SMP
) would not be a Mitigation Measure because the MND
did not identify a significant impact associated with soils contamination; however, as was suggested by DTSC, the City will require an SMP as a Condition of Approval for the Project. As discussed in Response to Comment B-2, above, there is a possibility that low levels of residual hydrocarbon compounds such as diesel and motor oil could be present in shallow soils in localized areas of the Project site and could be encountered during Project site grading. The response also notes that an SMP would be prepared for the Project. An SMP can be a standard practice for construction projects involving excavations and soil removal, especially for industrial infill development such as the proposed Project. The Project SMP would outline the procedures contractors are to follow if unanticipated soil contamination is encountered during construction grading and excavation activities. The Project SMP also would specify protocols and notifications necessary to address discovery of contaminated soil, health and safety, sampling and analysis, monitoring, soil removal, stockpiling, water quality, and transportation.

Response to Comment B-4
Sampling incoming fill material to identify potential contamination is likely unnecessary given the current environmental and regulatory climate in the San Francisco Bay Area. DTSC's 2001 Information Advisory regarding Clean Imported Fill Material (referenced by the commenter), while providing reasonable recommendations, may not reflect the best practices and safeguards that have been established over the past two decades. Nevertheless, the SMP discussed in the Response to Comment B-3, above, would include a Soil Importation Plan section that outlines contractor requirements and responsibilities for fill source verification and, if necessary, soil sampling and analysis if it cannot be confirmed that imported fill originated from an uncontaminated source area. The Soil Importation Plan would include soil source verification guidelines and protocols as well as soil sampling frequency and recommended laboratory analyses. As discussed above, preparation and adherence to a Soil Management Plan/Soil Importation Plan is being included as a Condition of Approval.

Response to Comment B-5
Comment Noted.

40 6886-001acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
TARA C. RENGIFO

Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

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

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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

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

printed on recycled paper

December 12
, 2023

VIA U.S. Mail, Email, and Hand Delivery

Chair Ivelina Popova
Planning Commission
City of Pittsburg
City Hall Council Chamber
65 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg, California 94565
[email protected]
Alice E. Evenson
City Clerk
City of Pittsburg
City Hall Council Chamber
65 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg, California 94565
[email protected]

VIA Email Only
Maurice Brenyah-Addow, Senior Planner
[email protected]

Re: Agenda Item No. 2: Consideration of Resolution Granting a Use Permit, Design Review, and Variance and Adoption of an Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Linde Inc., Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project, AP-23-0046 (UP, DR, VA)

Dear Chair Popova, Planning Commissioners and Mr. Brenyah-Addow:

We write on behalf of Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (“SAFER CA”) regarding Agenda Item No. 2, the Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project (“Project”) proposed by Linde, Inc. (“Applicant”). SAFER CA objects to the Planning Commission’s proposed approval of the Project due to the City of Pittsburg’s (“City”) failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code § 21100 et seq. Specifically, the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration1 (“IS/MND”) fails as an informational document under CEQA and lacks substantial evidence to conclude that the Project’s potentially significant impacts would be adequately mitigated. Moreover, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the proposed Project may cause

1 City of Pittsburg, Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project: Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (Oct. 2023), available at
https://www.pittsburgca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/15486/638328001708630000 .

Letter C
C-1
41 December 12, 2023

Page 2 ends

6886-001acp

printed on recycled paper
potentially significant, unmitigated impacts on public health, air quality, wetlands, and from hazardous materials which require an environmental impact report (“EIR”).

Given the 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).2 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.3 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.4 The expansion would also require electric substation upgrades to distribute the large amount electricity needed to operate the facility.5

The entire plant is outdoors, and no buildings are included with the Project.6 Construction of the Project would occur over approximately 13 months, including site preparation, grading, onsite utilities, paving, and equipment installation.7 The Applicant is seeking approval of the IS/MND, a use permit, design review, and variance from the Planning Commission.8

Based on our review of the IS/MND and available documents, we conclude the document fails to comply with CEQA. Specifically, the IS/MND does not adequately describe the current environmental setting and fails to disclose, analyze, and mitigate all potentially significant adverse impacts to air quality, hazards, and

2 IS/MND at p. 1.
3 IS/MND at p. 1.
4 IS/MND at p. 2.
5 IS/MND at p. 8.
6 IS/MND at p. 2.
7 IS/MND at p. 9.
8 IS/MND at p. 9.

C-1
42 December 12, 2023

Page 3 ends

6886-001acp

printed on recycled paper
biological resources 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.

These comments were prepared with the assistance of
Phyllis Fox, PhD, PE,
whose comments and qualifications are attached as Attachment A.9 The City must respond to Dr. Fox’s comments separately and fully.

I. 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. 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.

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.10 It is in this spirit we offer these comments.

9 Attachment A, Letter to Andrew J. Graf, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo from Phyllis Fox, Environmental Management re: Linde Oakstone NorCal Expansion Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (Dec. 12, 2023) (hereinafter “Fox Comments”). 10 Pub. Res. Code § 21081(a)(3); Citizens for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 171.

C-1
43 December 12, 2023

Page 4 ends

6886-001acp

printed on recycled paper
II. THE CITY MUST PREPARE AN EIR

CEQA requires that lead agencies analyze any project with potentially significant environmental impacts in an EIR, except in limited circumstances.11 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.”12

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.13 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.”14 “[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 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.”15

As detailed below, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may result in significant, unmitigated impacts to air quality, hazards, and biological resources. The City must prepare an EIR that analyzes, discloses, and mitigates these impacts and considers less environmentally damaging alternatives.

11 Pub. Res. Code § 21000; CEQA Guidelines § 15002.
12 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 (internal citations omitted).
13 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.
14 CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a).
15 CEQA Guidelines § 15064(g).

C-1
44 December 12, 2023

Page 5 ends

6886-001acp

printed on recycled paper
A. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that Construction Health Risk Impacts Are Potentially Significant and Unmitigated

The IS/MND conducted a
quantified health risk analysis (“HRA”) which
evaluated cancer and chronic health impacts to offsite receptors from construction and operational emissions.16 However, the IS/MND fails to evaluate the acute health impacts from diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) to on-site and off-site construction workers.17

DPM is a potent human carcinogen that is chronically and acutely toxic.18 In fact, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) concludes that “[e]posure to diesel exhaust can have immediate health effects immediate health effects.”19 Construction workers have the greatest risk when it comes to acute DPM exposure because they operate and maintain the equipment that emits DPM.20

Here, the IS/MND acknowledges DPM emissions would occur during Project construction, but the HRA does analyze the acute impacts to construction workers and workers at the adjacent business as sensitive receptors.21 Short-term exposures of 1-hour, known as acute exposures, are routinely evaluated in health risk assessments using Reference Exposure Levels (“RELs”).22 Dr. Fox recommends that the IS/MND utilize a significance threshold of 10 µg/m3 to protect against adverse effects on the respiratory system.23 Based on her experience with other projects that have similar construction activities, Dr. Fox concludes health impacts to on-site construction workers from exposure to acute DPM emissions are potentially significant.24 Therefore, substantial evidence supports a fair argument the proposed Project would result in potentially significant air quality impacts.

16 IS/MND at pp. 22-23; see also id., appen. A.
17 Fox Comments at pp. 4-6.
18 Fox Comments at p. 4.
19 Fox Comments at pp. 4-5; California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust, https://oehha.ca.gov/air/health-effects-diesel-exhaust (last updated May 21, 2001); see also Cal/EPA 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. 20 Fox Comments at p. 5.
21 Fox Comments at p. 5.
22 Fox Comments at pp. 5-6.
23 Fox Comments at p. 6.
24 Fox Comments at p. 6.

C-2
45 December 12, 2023

Page 6 ends

6886-001acp
printed on recycled paper
B. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project May Result in Potentially Significant Unmitigated Hazards Impacts The IS/MND incorrectly concludes that the proposed Project would not create
a significant hazard to the public or environment based on a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”).25 As a threshold matter, the Phase 1 ESA was not attached to the IS/MND, not available on the City’s website or CEQAnet, and not included as part of the Planning Commission’s agenda packet. It is well settled that a CEQA document may not rely on hidden studies or documents that are not available to the public.26 Courts have held that the failure to provide even a few pages of a CEQA document for a portion of the CEQA review period invalidates the entire CEQA process, and that such failure must be remedied by permitting additional public comment.27
SAFER CA received a copy of the Phase I ESA in response to a Public Records Act Request. Based on SAFER CA’s review of the Phase 1 ESA and available evidence, the record demonstrates that it
does not support the IS/MND’s
conclusion that hazard impacts are less than significant. To the contrary, the Phase 1 ESA provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may cause potentially significant impacts due to disturbance of contaminated soils or other hazardous conditions that may be present at the Project site. These impacts are not adequately mitigated by the mitigation measures in the IS/MND and require preparation of an EIR.

The purpose of the Phase 1 ESA is to identify recognized environmental conditions (“RECs”) in connection with the Project site.28 RECs include “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substance or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.”29
25 IS/MND at pp. 57-58.
26 Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 442, as modified (Apr. 18, 2007) (EIR must transparently incorporate and describe the reference materials relied on in its analysis); Santiago County Water District v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3rd 818, 831 (“[W]hatever is required to be considered in an EIR must be in that formal report. . .”) (internal citations omitted).
27 Ultramar v. South Coast Air Quality Man. Dist. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 689, 699. 28 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc., Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report: North Portion of Linde Inc Property 2000 Loveridge Road Pittsburg, California 94565 (Mar. 2023) p. 1 (hereinafter “Phase 1 ESA”).
29 Id. at p. 1, fn. 2.

C-3
C-4
46 December 12, 2023

Page 7 ends

6886-001acp
printed on recycled paper
The Project’s Phase 1 ESA identifies several hazards that potentially exist within the greater parcel. For example, soil samples that were excavated from a ditch displayed high concentrations for zinc, chromium, copper, lead, and nickel.30 The Phase 1 ESA also identified two leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) which were removed in the late 1980s.31 Finally, the Phase 1 ESA identified approximately nine petroleum USTs with tank capacities ranging from 500 to 20,000 gallons containing waste oil, diesel, or gasoline as present within the parcel.32 However, the exact locations of the ditch cleanup and USTs are unknown based on the available records.33
Given these
significant data gaps, the Phase 1 ESA concludes the
Project site contains a REC given the likelihood of residual impacts to soil and/or groundwater from the document ditch cleanup and former UST releases from the upgradient facility.34 Despite this, the IS/MND misleadingly claims that there is no evidence indicating that the Project site has been involved in the storage, accidental release, or production of hazardous materials.35 Because the Phase 1 ESA finds that the soil at the Project site is likely contaminated and does not rule out the existence of USTs or other hazardous conditions on the Project site, the IS/MND cannot conclude that the Project’s impacts are less than significant without additional site-specific soil investigation and mitigation.

The IS/MND also fails to adequately address issues raised by the Department
of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”). Based on its review of the IS/MND, DTSC recommended additional investigation and sampling (if necessary) before any groundbreaking activities commenced because “[t]here may be unidentified environmental concerns at the site.”36 DTSC also recommended preparation of a Soil Management Plan (“SMP”) in case unforeseen contaminants were discovered.37 Lastly, DTSC recommended sampling be conducted on any imported soil to ensure it is free of contamination.38
30 Id. at p. 27.
31 Id. at p. 27 (a 1997 letter indicates that the two USTs contained 10,000-gallon diesel and 300- gallon waste oil).
32 Id. at pp. 27-28.
33 Ibid.
34 Id. at pp. 29-30.
35 IS/MND at p. 58.
36 Letter to Maurice Brenyah-Addow, City of Pittsburg from Dave Kereazis, Department of Toxic Substances Control re: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project, Dated October 13, 2023 State Clearinghouse # 2023100371 (Nov. 13, 2023) p. 2. 37 Ibid.
38 Ibid.

C-4
C-5
47 December 12, 2023

Page 8 ends

6886-001acp
printed on recycled paper
In response to DTSC’s comments, City staff did not revise the IS/MND or include additional mitigation measures addressing potential soil and/or groundwater contamination. Instead, the Staff Report included DTSC’s three recommendations as conditions of approval.39 This response does not alleviate the City from its obligations to disclose, analyze and mitigate potentially significant impacts in the IS/MND.

DTSC’s comments demonstrate that the IS/MNDs fails to meaningfully analyze whether the proposed Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials to the environment.

Moreover, inclusion of the DTSC’s recommendations as conditions of approval further demonstrates that the Project could result in potentially significant hazard impacts requiring mitigation. Yet, the IS/MND
lacks the requisite analysis, and as
a result lacks substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the Project’s hazard impacts are less than significant.

Moreover, neither the IS/MND, nor the Staff Report, address additional evidence produced after the release of the CEQA document that further supports the conclusion that there may be potentially significant hazard impacts resulting from the disturbance of existing soil contamination. Specifically, soil sampling at the Project site revealed hydrocarbon odors in several samples.40 Testing of the soil detected low concentrations of diesel and motor oil in nearly all soil samples, and concentrations of arsenic and vanadium at levels above the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board Tier 1 environmental screening levels (“ESLs”) and commercial land use ESLs.41 These findings, coupled with the Phase 1 ESA’s conclusion that contaminated soils are likely present at the Project site and DTSC’s comments that additional investigation of the Project site is needed, provide substantial evidence to support a fair argument that Project’s impacts are potentially significant.

Finally, Dr. Fox’s comments constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project would result in potentially significant health impacts from the on-site soil contamination. Dr. Fox concludes that Project construction would disturb contaminated soils, releasing hazardous air pollutants, including 39 Staff Report at p. 12.
40 Letter to Manual Gonzalez, Linde Engineering Americas from Stefanie Parman-Ribeiro, Baez Geotechnical Group re: Limited Soil Sampling and Analytical Testing of Soil with Detected Odor:

Proposed Linde Air Separation Unit Facility Expansion 2000 Loveridge Road Pittsburg, California (July 26, 2023) p. 1.
41 Id. at p. 2.

C-5
C-6
48 December 12, 2023

Page 9 ends

6886-001acp
printed on recycled paper
arsenic.42 As a result, the Project could cause potentially significant health hazard to on-site construction workers as well as nearby residents.43 Dr. Fox bases her conclusion on the many inconsistencies between the IS/MND’s summary of the Phase 1 ESA and the findings and conclusions contained in the Phase 1 ESA and findings from the soil analytical testing.44
In sum, the IS/MND ignores evidence showing that the Project site may contain hazardous conditions
which could be disturbed by construction and
operation activities. As a result, the IS/MND fails to meaningfully disclose, analyze, and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant hazard impacts.

Furthermore, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the proposed Project would result in potentially significant health impacts from disturbance of on-site soil contamination.

C. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts to Wetlands and Riparian Habitat The proposed Project
intends to receive take authorization coverage under
the state and federal East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (“HCP/NCCP”).45 The HCP/NCCP provides a framework to protect natural resources in eastern Contra Costa County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts on endangered species.46 If wetlands or other waters are present on the project site, the HCP/NCCP requires that a delineation of jurisdictional wetlands and waters be conducted to document the expected impacts that would result from the project.47 A project will not receive coverage under the HCP/NCCP until it has properly mitigated the impacts on jurisdictional waters according to the terms of the HCP/NCCP, including compliance with Conservation Measure 2.12.48 42 Fox Comments at p. 3.
43 Fox Comments at p. 4.
44 Fox Comments at pp. 3-4.
45 IS/MND at pp. 25-26.
46 IS/MND at p. 25; see also East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Association, Final East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Oct. 10, 2007) (hereinafter “HCP/NCCP”) p. ES-1, available at https://www.cocohcp.org/DocumentCenter/View/1411/ECCC-HCP-NCCP---Vol-1-PDF -565- MB?bidId=.
47 HCP/NCCP at p. 6-12.
48 HCP/NCCP at p. 6-12.

C-7
C-6
49 December 12, 2023

Page 10 ends

6886-001acp

printed on recycled paper
Conservation Measure 2.12 requires that all projects implement the following measures to avoid and minimize impacts of land disturbing activities on wetlands, ponds, streams, and riparian woodland/scrub:49

1. Applicants with streams on site must follow the stream setback requirements in Conservation Measure 1.7.

2. Applicants for coverage under the HCP/NCCP must follow the guidelines in Conservation Measure 1.10 to minimize the effects of urban development on downstream hydrology, streams, and wetlands.

3. All wetlands, ponds, streams and riparian woodland/scrub to be avoided by covered activities will be temporarily staked in the field by qualified biologists.

4. Buffer zones should be established where feasible between the aquatic resource and development. Required setbacks for streams are described in Conservation Measure 1.7. Credit for preservation of aquatic habitat will be given only if these features meet minimum distances from dense urban development.

5. Fencing will be erected between the outer edge of the buffer zone and the project area. The type of fencing will match the activity and impact types.

For example, projects that have the potential to cause erosion will require erosion control barriers, and projects that may bring more household pets to a site should be fenced to keep the pets out. The temporal requirements for fencing also depend on the activity and impact type. For example, fencing for permanent impacts should be permanent, and fencing for short term impacts should be removed after the activity is completed.

6. Personnel conducting ground-disturbing activities within or adjacent to the buffer zone of wetlands, ponds, streams, or riparian woodland/scrub will be trained by a qualified biologist in these avoidance and minimization measures and permit obligations of the project proponents working under this HCP/NCCP. Vehicles and equipment will be parked on pavement, existing roads, and previously disturbed areas.

7. Trash generated by covered activities will promptly and properly be removed from the site.

8. No construction or maintenance vehicles will be refueled within 200 feet of wetlands, ponds, streams, or riparian woodland/scrub unless a bermed lined refueling area is constructed and hazardous material absorbent pads are available in the event of a spill.

9. Appropriate erosion-control measures (e.g., fiber rolls, filter fences, vegetative buffer strips) will be used on site to reduce siltation and runoff

49 HCP/NCCP at pp. 6-33 to 6-35.

C-7
50 December 12, 2023

Page 11 ends

6886-001acp

printed on recycled paper
of contaminants into wetlands, ponds, streams, or riparian woodland/scrub. Filter fences and mesh will be of material that will not entrap reptiles and amphibians. Erosion control blankets shall be used as a last resort because of their tendency to biodegrade slowly and trap reptiles and amphibians. Erosion-control measures will be placed between the outer edge of the buffer and the project site.

10. Fiber rolls used for erosion control will be certified as free of noxious weed seed.

11. Seed mixtures applied for erosion control will not contain invasive nonnative species, and will be composed of native species or sterile nonnative species.

12. Where feasible, stream crossings will be located in stream segments
without riparian vegetation, and bridge footings will be built outside the stream banks (i.e., clear span structures).

13. Herbicide will not be applied within 100 feet of wetlands, ponds, streams, or riparian woodland/scrub; however, where appropriate to control serious invasive plants, herbicides that have been approved for use by EPA in or adjacent to aquatic habitats may be used as long as label instructions are followed and applications avoid or minimize impacts on covered species and their habitats. In seasonal or intermittent stream or wetland environments, appropriate herbicides may be applied during the dry season to control nonnative invasive species (e.g., yellow star-thistle).

Herbicide drift should be minimized by applying the herbicide as close to the target area as possible.

The HCP/NCCP explains that these avoidance and minimization measures are required to meet the biological objectives of the HCP/NCCP to avoid and minimize effects on wetlands, ponds, streams, and riparian woodland/scrub.50 Because of the sensitivity of these aquatic land cover types, special avoidance and minimization measures are necessary.51

The IS/MND acknowledges that seasonal and perennial wetlands, drainage features, and riparian woodland are within the property lines, but claims the proposed Project would avoid impacts to these sensitive areas because they occur outside the permanent and temporary impact areas.52 The IS/MND’s discussion and analysis suffers from several fatal flaws.

50 HCP/NCCP at p. 6-35.
51 HCP/NCCP at p. 6-35.
52 IS/MND at p. 31 (“No formal delineation covers the area west of the railroad tracks, which includes potential temporary impact area (staging area).”).

C-7
C-8
51 December 12, 2023

Page 12 ends

6886-001acp
printed on recycled paper
First, the IS/MND relies on an outdated delineation study that does not accurately define all potential jurisdictional wetlands in and around the Project site. An initial study must include a description of the project’s environmental setting.53 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.54 “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.”55
While preparing an IS/MND necessarily involves some degree of forecasting, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can.56 If a lead finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation after a thorough investigation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact.57 But an agency is not allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data.58
Here, the
City failed to perform a jurisdictional delineation survey for the entire Project site as required by the HCP/NCCP. While a jurisdictional delineation survey was performed in 2018 for portions of the site, a 2023 reconnaissance-level survey and habitat assessment acknowledge that the previously documented wetlands have likely increased over time.59 Moreover, the IS/MND admits that no formal delineation survey covers the western portion of the Project site, which includes a proposed staging area, despite potential wetlands identified adjacent to the staging area.60 Without a detailed inventory of current wetland boundaries, the IS/MND lacks substantial evidence to conclude that the Project entirely avoids impacts on wetlands.

Second, the IS/MND’s
impact analysis is misleading because it fails to
identify and describe potential indirect impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat.

When evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the lead agency must consider reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the 53 CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2).
54 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).
55 CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a).
56 Id. § 15144 (emphasis added).
57 Id. § 15145 (emphasis added).
58 City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 408. 59 IS/MND, appen. C, Application Form and Planning Survey Report: Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project (undated) p. 6.
60 IS/MND at p. 31.

C-8
C-9
52 December 12, 2023

Page 13 ends

6886-001acp

printed on recycled paper
environment which may be caused by the project.61 An indirect physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is not immediately related to the project, but which is caused indirectly by the project.62 If a direct physical change in the environment in turn causes another change in the environment, then the other change is an indirect physical change in the environment.63

For example, construction activities such as grading, land clearing, or installation of drainage systems can alter water flow patterns, potentially affecting the natural water supply to wetlands. Construction sites also generate increased sedimentation and runoff, which can be carried into nearby wetlands and degrade water quality. Excessive sedimentation can smother aquatic habitats and negatively impact wetland vegetation. Increased truck traffic can also result in altered hydrology and increased potential for pollution runoff. Finally, excessive noise and vibrations from plant equipment may disrupt wildlife behavior and stress sensitive species in and around wetlands.

The IS/MND does not include any discussion or analysis of these potential indirect impacts despite construction and operational activities anticipated to occur only feet from protected wetlands and riparian habitat.64 The lack of analysis is especially concerning given the Phase 1 ESA’s conclusion that the Project site may contain contaminated soils or other hazards (such as USTs),65 which could negatively impact nearby wetlands and riparian habitat if disturbed during Project construction and operation.

Third, the IS/MND lacks adequate mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts on wetlands to less than significant. Unlike other HCP/NCCP measures which were incorporated into the IS/MND as mitigation,66 none of the measures listed in Conservation Measure 2.12 were included as mitigation for the proposed Project. While the Planning Commission Staff Report identifies some (but not all) of the conservation measures,67 none of the measures are included as conditions of approval or in the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program.

Instead, the IS/MND concludes that impacts to riparian habitat and protected wetlands are less than significant with Mitigation Measure (“MM”) BIO-

61 CEQA Guidelines § 15064(d).
62 CEQA Guidelines § 15064(d)(2).
63 CEQA Guidelines § 15064(d)(2).
64 See IS/MND, appen. C, fig. 3 (Land Cover Map) (Agenda Packet, p. 368). 65 Phase 1 ESA at pp. 27-28.
66 Compare IS/ND at pp. 27-28 (Mitigation Measure BIO-1) with HCP/NCCP at pp. 6-40 to 6-41. 67 See Staff Report at pp. 7-8.

C-9
C-10
53 December 12, 2023

Page 14 ends

6886-001acp

printed on recycled paper

6.68 MM BIO-6 states: “Prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct an aquatic resources delineation covering the Project area to confirm current wetland boundaries and ensure avoidance of these features.69 MM BIO-6 constitutes improperly deferred mitigation.

Generally, it is inappropriate to defer formulation of mitigation measures to the future.70 Deferred mitigation is only acceptable when the measure commits to implement the mitigation, adopts specific performance standards, and identifies the types of actions that may achieve compliance with the performance standards.71 MM BIO-6 does not include any performance standards, nor does it identify the types of actions that may achieve compliance.

Moreover, future studies are only permissible when coupled with mitigation measures designed to address impacts identified by the study.72 However, MM BIO-6 does not specify the conditions that would trigger the need for further mitigation should the aquatic resources delineation survey identify wetlands within permanent and temporary impact areas. Nor does the measure describe the steps that will be taken if further mitigation is required. As a result, the IS/MND lacks substantial evidence to conclude impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat are less than significant.

In sum, the IS/MND lacks substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the Project’s impacts on riparian habitat and protected wetlands are less than significant and that the proposed Project does not conflict with the HCP/NCCP given the inadequate discussion of the existing environmental setting. Moreover, the IS/MND fails as an informational document because it fails to disclose potentially significant indirect impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat. Finally, the IS/MND lacks adequate mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts on wetlands and riparian habitats to less than significant.

III. CONCLUSION

There is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant, unmitigated impacts to public health, on air quality and wetlands, and from hazardous materials. The Planning Commission should

68 IS/MND at p. 31.
69 IS/MND at p. 31.
70 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).
71 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).
72 Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1275; Save Panoche Valley v. San Benito County (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 503, 524.

C-10
C-11
C-12
54 December 12, 2023

Page 15 ends

6886-001acp
printed on recycled paper
continue the public hearing and direct City staff to prepare an EIR that discloses, analyzes, and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.

Thank you for consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,
Andrew J. Graf
AJG:acp
C-12
55 ATTACHMENT A
56 1

Phyllis Fox, PhD, PE
Environmental Management
745 White Pine Avenue
Rockledge, FL 32955

December 12, 2023

Andrew J. Graf
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080

RE: Linde Oakstone NorCal Expansion Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration

Dear Mr. Graf:

As you requested, I have reviewed the Linde Oakstone NorCal Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).1 Linde, Inc., the Applicant, is proposing to expand their existing facility at 2000 Loveridge Road in Pittsburg, CA.

The expanded facility would increase production of liquid nitrogen, oxygen, and argon and distribute the products by truck to the Bay Area, the Central Valley, and into nearby states. The products will be stored in three large tanks, transferred into bulk trucks, and then delivered into smaller tanks at customer locations.

The IS/MND concludes that all impacts are less than significant with incorporation of proposed mitigation measures, thus asserting an environmental impact report is not required for the Project. My review of the IS/MND and supporting documents indicates that the IS/MND fails to analyze impacts that are potentially significant and underestimates other impacts that are highly significant. The IS/MND does not include any analysis of most of the Project’s major impacts, including risk of upset and construction worker health impacts. My review identifies the following impacts:

1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project (IS/MND), October 2023, pdf 38-554;
https://onbaseweb.pittsburgca.gov/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/DownloadFileBytes/Planning_ Commission_1092_Agenda_Packet_12_12_2023_7_00_00_PM.pdf?documentType=5&meetingId=1092&is Attachment=True.

57 2

• Construction worker health impacts from hazardous chemicals in Project soils that will be disturbed during construction were not evaluated and are potentially significant;
• Acute health impacts to on-site construction workers, off-site workers, and nearby residents during construction were not evaluated and are potentially significant; and
• Risk of upset impacts were not addressed and are potentially significant.

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); 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.

HEALTH RISKS ARE SIGNIFICANT
The IS/MND failed to evaluate health impacts to on-site construction workers and off-site workers and residents from on-site soil contamination. While the IS/MND conducted a health risk assessment (HRA) for Project construction and operation, which evaluated cancer and chronic health impacts to off-site receptors from construction and operational emissions,2 the HRA fails to address all of the health impacts of Project construction because it failed to evaluate acute health impacts from diesel particulate matter (DPM) to on-site and off-site construction workers, the nearest sensitive receptors. Finally, the IS/MND failed to disclose and analyze the risks of potential upset on construction workers, off-site workers, and nearby residents.

2 IS/MND, Section 2.0, Health Risk Assessment, pdf 237-274. 58 3

Health Impacts from On-Site Soil Contamination
The IS/MND concludes that the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment based on the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report (ESA). The IS/MND summarizes the conclusion from the ESA as follows:3

Specifically, on page 58 of the IS/MND the IS/MND states: “Furthermore, it is very likely that, despite the contradictory information in the databases, the nine petroleum underground storage tanks are located on the developed Linde Inc. properties to the east and south of the Project site. There is no evidence presented in the Phase 1 indicating that the vacant portion of the parcel that is considered the Project site has been involved in the storage, accidental release, or production of hazardous waste or materials and that it could create a significant hazard to the public or environment.”4 However, in contrast, the Phase 1 ESA (at page 30), states: “As no maps or other related details were available from the Linde Facility former UST [underground storage tank] removals or early 1980s ditch cleanups, it remains unclear where in relation to the Subject Property these former USTs and ditches were, and if any new samples collected would meet the current regulatory requirements. Given these concerns, and the fact that the Subject Property is likely downgradient from the Linde Facility, CEC considers these data gaps as significant, and a REC identified given the likelihood of some residual impacts to soil and/or groundwater.”
The Phase 1 ESA goes on to conclude: “CEC identified a significant data gap (i.e., lack of information/details regarding the Linde Facility ditch cleanup and former Linde Facility UST removals), as a REC given the likelihood of some residual impacts to soil and/or groundwater from the documented 1980s Linde facility ditch cleanup and the documented former UST releases from the likely upgradient Linde Facility.” Moreover, in soil analytic testing (see attached), odor was observed in some soil samples that were taken from the Project site. Some of the samples were reported to

3 IS/MND, pdf 97-98.
4 IS/MND, pdf 99.
59 4

have detectable concentrations of some heavy metals, TPH Diesel, and TPH Motor Oil; however, nearly all the detected constituents were reported at levels below the SFBRWQCB Tier 1 ESLs, with the exception of Arsenic and Vanadium. The report concludes that the reported detections of TPH Diesel and Motor Oil are the likely source of the odor observed by the sampling technicians.

Given these contradictions, Project construction, which would disturb contaminated soils, releasing hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), could cause a potentially significant health hazard to on-site construction workers and off-site parties, including residents of at the Edgewater Apartment Complex 800 feet from the Project and workers at the Linde Welding Gas & Equipment Center property.5 Arsenic, for example, is a confirmed carcinogen. Immediate symptoms of acute arsenic poisoning include vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhea, followed by numbness and tingling of the extremities, muscle cramping and death, in extreme cases.6 This is a potentially significant impact that was not addressed in the IS/MND, which thus fails as an informational document under CEQA.

Worker Acute Health Impacts from Diesel Particulate Matter Construction equipment emits diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is a HAP.

DPM is a potent human carcinogen.7,8 It is also chronically9 and acutely10 toxic.

OEHHA has concluded that “[e]xposure to diesel exhaust can have immediate health effects,” which include “inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic

5 IS/MND, pdf 247.
6 World Health Organization, Arsenic: Key Facts, December 7, 2022; https://www.who.int/news- room/fact-
sheets/detail/arsenic#:~:text=Long%2Dterm%20exposure%20to%20arsenic,increased%20deaths%20in% 20young%20adults.
7 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.
8 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.
9 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.
10 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. 60 5

respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks.”11 The emission of DPM during construction should have triggered a construction health risk assessment that included construction workers and workers at the adjacent businesses as sensitive receptors. A health risk assessment was conducted, but it excluded these nearby sensitive receptors, thus failing as an informational document under CEQA.

Construction workers have the greatest risk. Construction workers are the nearest sensitive receptors. 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 facilities.

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.”12
There are three types of health impacts – cancer, chronic, and acute. The IS/MND evaluated the chronic and cancer health impacts of construction and operational emissions only to off-site receptors, located at the Edgewater Apartment Complex 800 feet from the Project and workers at the Linde Welding Gas & Equipment Center property.13 However, the most impacted sensitive receptors are construction workers and workers at the facility itself. On-site workers are not exempt from CEQA.

There are two noncancer hazard indices: chronic (long-term) and acute (1-hour).

The most likely health impacts would be acute health impacts to on-site construction and operational workers due to their proximity to the source of emissions. The IS/MND failed to evaluate acute health impacts to any receptor and failed to evaluate any health impacts to construction workers and on-site operational workers, thus failing as an informational document under CEQA.

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has established a chronic reference exposure level (REL) for DPM but not an acute REL.

Acute health impacts occur over a 1-hour exposure time. The OEHHA and BAAQMD have not established an acute REL for DPM, but other agencies have. The BAAQMD significance threshold for acute impacts from “…new sources and receptors (individual

11 OEHHA and the American Lung Association of California, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust; https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf. 12 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. 13 IS/MND, pdf 247.
61 6

project)…Increased Non-cancer>1.0 Hazard Index (chronic or acute”)”.14 The BAAQMD and OEHHA risk guidance do not require the use of an OEHHA acute hazard index. The absence of an OEHHA acute risk exposure level does not excuse the Applicant from evaluating acute health risks.

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 OEHHA last evaluated health impacts of DPM in 1998,15 substantial additional research has been conducted on acute health impacts of DPM.16 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.17 There is no regulation or guidance requiring that only OEHHA RELs be used in California health risk assessments. The Initial Study should have evaluated acute impacts of DPM to construction and operational workers. Based on my experience in many other projects with similar construction activities, equipment and timeline, acute health impacts to on- site construction workers from exposure to DPM emissions during Project construction are typically significant and unmitigated.

Risk of Upset Impacts 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.”18 Elsewhere, the IS/MND asserts, with no support, as follows:

14 BAAQMD, Bay Area Air Quality Management District California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (2022 CEQA Guidelines); 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.

15 Findings of the Scientific Review Panel on the Report on Diesel Exhaust, 1998; https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/dieseltac/de-fnds.pdf.
16 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/. 17 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. 18 IS/MND, pdf 50, 120.
62 7

The IS/MND fails to disclose the nature of these “hazards” and fails to evaluate their impact on construction workers, operational workers at the facility, and off-site sensitive receptors, failing as an informational document under CEQA.

In sum, the Project described in the IS/MND will result in significant impacts that were not disclosed in the IS/MND, which thus fails as an informational document under CEQA.

Sincerely,

Phyllis Fox, Ph.D., PE

63 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. 64 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, including waste to 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; lithium extraction from mining wastes and geothermal fluids; 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) 65 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 3

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

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 66 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. 67 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 68 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. 69 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. 70 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 71 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 72 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).
73 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.
74 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 75 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. 76 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 77 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. 78 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. 79 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.
80 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 October 2022, researched and wrote 43 pages of comments on the Lancaster Waste to Renewable Hydrogen Project on (a) significant construction emissions; (b) construction mitigation; unenforceable operational criteria pollutant and GHG emissions; (c) significant construction and operational health impacts and mitigation; and (d) significant health risks of Valley Fever and mitigation.
 In August 2022, researched and wrote 8 pages of comments on Heliogen Holdings’ Application for Authority to Contstruct and Permit to Operate for the Polaris Solar Energy Project on significant operational PM10 emissions and Valley Fever;  In June-July, 2022, Researched and wrote 29 pages of comments on the IS/MND for the SFPP Bradshaw Terminal Renewable by Rail Project on (a) significant and underestimated locomotive emissions; (b) omitted operational emission sources (on-site fugitive emissions, rail car transit emissions, emissions in other air districts); (c) significant construction health 81 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 19

risks (acute, cancer); (d) significant operational cancer risks; (e) mitigation for significant health impacts; and (f) significant construction NOx and PM10 emissions and mitigation  In February-March 2022, researched and wrote 19 pages of responses to comments on construction impacts, risk of upset, and cumulative impacts of the Heber 1 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND.
 In January 2022, researched and wrote 9 pages of comments on the DEIR for the San Jose Data Center on greenhouse gas emissions and the SPPE exemption.  In January 2022, researched and wrote 30 pages of comments on the RDEIR for the Estrella Substation and Paso Robles Area Reinforcement project on (a) EMF health risks; (b) emissions from BESS charging; (c) emissions and mitigation for heliocopter emissions; and (d) Valley Fever mitigation.
 In January 2022, research and wrote 12 pages of responses to comments on the revised IS/ND for the World Energy Terminal on: (a) construction emission impacts; (b) operational VOC emissions; (c) revised tank emissions; and (d) increase in Terminal throughput.  In December 2021, researched and wrote 20 pages of comments on the IS/MND for the North Central Valley Battery Energy Storage Facility on: (a) greenhouse gas emissions; (b) risk of upset; and (c) cumulative impacts.
 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.
 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.
82 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 20

 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.  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.
83 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 21

 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.
 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. 84 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 22

 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.  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 85 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 23

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.  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. 86 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 24

 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.
 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.
87 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 25

 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.  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.
88 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 26

 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.
 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 89 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 27

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.  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 90 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 28

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 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.
91 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 29

 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).
 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 92 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 30

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.
 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. 93 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 31

 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).  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). 94 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 32

 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).  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.
95 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 33

 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.  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 96 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 34

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 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 97 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 35

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 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; 98 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 36

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Refine/develop statistical theory of autocorrelation and use to assess strength of relationships between biological and flow variables;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. Identify and evaluate non-export factors that may have contributed to fishery declines, including predation, shifts in oceanic conditions, aquatic toxicity from 99 PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 37

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

 Developed, directed, and participated in a broad-based research program on environmental issues and control technology for energy industries including petroleum, oil shale, coal mining, and coal slurry transport. Research included evaluation of air and water pollution, development of novel, low-cost technology to treat and dispose of wastes, and development and application of geohydrologic models to evaluate subsurface contamination from in-situ retorting. The program consisted of government and industry contracts and employed 45 technical and administrative personnel.
 Coordinated an industry task force established to investigate the occurrence, causes, and solutions for corrosion/erosion and mechanical/engineering failures in the waterside systems (e.g., condensers, steam generation equipment) of power plants. Corrosion/erosion failures caused by water and steam contamination that were investigated included waterside corrosion caused by poor microbiological treatment of cooling water, steam-side corrosion caused by ammonia-oxygen attack of copper alloys, stress-corrosion cracking of copper alloys in the air cooling sections of condensers, tube sheet leaks, oxygen in-leakage through condensers, volatilization of silica in boilers and carry over and deposition on turbine blades, and iron corrosion on boiler tube walls. Mechanical/engineering failures investigated included: steam impingement attack on the steam side of condenser tubes, tube-to-tube-sheet joint leakage, flow-induced vibration, structural design problems, and mechanical failures due to stresses induced by shutdown, startup and cycling duty, among others. Worked with electric utility plant owners/operators, condenser and boiler vendors, and architect/engineers to collect data to document the occurrence of and causes for these problems, prepared reports summarizing the investigations, and presented the results and participated on a committee of industry experts tasked with identifying solutions to prevent condenser failures.  Evaluated the cost effectiveness and technical feasibility of using dry cooling and parallel dry-wet cooling to reduce water demands of several large natural-gas fired power plants in California and Arizona.
 Designed and prepared cost estimates for several dry cooling systems (e.g., fin fan heat exchangers) used in chemical plants and refineries.
 Designed, evaluated, and costed several zero liquid discharge systems for power plants.  Evaluated the impact of agricultural and mining practices on surface water quality of Central Valley steams. Represented municipal water agencies on several federal and state advisory committees tasked with gathering and assessing relevant technical information, developing work plans, and providing oversight of technical work to investigate toxicity issues in the watershed.
100
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 38

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

Conducted traffic surveys, continuously monitored diesel exhaust using an aethalometer, and prepared health risk assessments using resulting data.
 Conducted indoor air quality investigations to assess exposure to natural gas leaks, pesticides, molds and fungi, soil gas from subsurface contamination, and outgasing of carpets, drapes, furniture and construction materials. Prepared health risk assessments using collected data.  Prepared health risk assessments, emission inventories, air quality analyses, and assisted in the permitting of over 70 1 to 2 MW emergency diesel generators.  Prepare over 100 health risk assessments, endangerment assessments, and other health-based studies for a wide range of industrial facilities.
 Developed methods to monitor trace elements in gas streams, including a continuous real- time monitor based on the Zeeman atomic absorption spectrometer, to continuously measure mercury and other elements.
 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.
101
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. Phyllis Fox and others, Authority to Construct Former Guadalupe Oil Field Remediation Project, Prepared for Unocal Corporation and submitted to San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, May 1998.
102
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 40

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

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

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

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

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

Phyllis Fox and Alison Britton, Evaluation of the Relationship Between Biological Indicators and the Position of X2, CUWA Report, 1994.

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. P. Fox and others, "Reply to Discussion by Philip B. Williams on Trends in Freshwater Inflow to San Francisco Bay from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta," Water Resources Bulletin, v. 27, no. 2, 1991.
103
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 41

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. T. Hodgson, M. J. Pollard, G. J. Harris, D. C. Girvin, J. P. Fox, and N. J. Brown, Mercury Mass Distribution During Laboratory and Simulated In-Situ Retorting, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-12908, 39 pp., Feb. 1982.
104
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 42

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. P. Fox and T. E. Phillips, "Wastewater Treatment in the Oil Shale Industry," in Oil Shale: the Environmental Challenges, K. K. Petersen (ed.), p. 253, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11214).
105
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 43

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. M. Jones, R. H. Sakaji, J. P. Fox, and C. G. Daughton, "Removal of Contaminative Constituents from Retort Water: Difficulties with Biotreatment and Potential Applicability of 106
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 44

Raw and Processed Shales," EPA/DOE Oil Shale Wastewater Treatability Workshop, December 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-12124).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sampling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA-600/9-80-022, March 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8888).

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

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

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

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

J. P. Fox and D. L. Jackson, "Potential Uses of Spent Shale in the Treatment of Oil Shale Retort Waters," Proceedings of the DOE Wastewater Workshop, Washington, D. C., June 14-15, 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9716).
107
PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 45

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bay Valley Consultants, Water Quality Control Plan for Sacramento, Sacramento-San Joaquin and San Joaquin Basins, Parts I and II and Appendices A-E, 750 pp., 1974. 108
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 America/Geochemical Society, 11/00.

Design of Gas Turbine Combined Cycle and Cogeneration Systems, Thermoflow, 12/00 Air-Cooled Steam Condensers and Dry- and Hybrid-Cooling Towers, Power-Gen, 12/01 Combustion Turbine Power Augmentation with Inlet Cooling and Wet Compression, Power-Gen , 12/01
CEQA Update, UC Berkeley Extension, 3/02
The Health Effects of Chemicals, Drugs, and Pollutants, UC Berkeley Extension, 4-5/02 Noise Exposure Assessment: Sampling Strategy and Data Acquisition, AIHA PDC 205, 6/02 Noise Exposure Measurement Instruments and Techniques, AIHA PDC 302, 6/02 Noise Control Engineering, AIHA PDC 432, 6/02
Optimizing Generation and Air Emissions, Power-Gen, 12/02 Utility Industry Issues, Power-Gen, 12/02
Multipollutant Emission Control, Coal-Gen, 8/03
Community Noise, AIHA PDC 104, 5/04
Cutting-Edge Topics in Noise and Hearing Conservation, AIHA 5/04 Selective Catalytic Reduction: From Planning to Operation, Power-Gen, 12/05 Improving the FGD Decision Process, Power-Gen, 12/05
E-Discovery, CEB, 6/06
McIlvaine Hot Topic Hour, FGD Project Delay Factors, 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
109
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
110
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. 111
P AGE RTC - 8

LETTER C: ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO, DECEMBER 12, 2023

Response to Comment C-1
Comment Noted. The comment provides Project and introductory information.

Response to Comment C-2
For the purposes of responding to this comment it is assumed that there is a typo in the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 5 of the Comment Letter and it was supposed to say “but the HRA does not analyze acute impacts to construction workers…” The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has developed reference exposure levels (RELs) to determine potential non -cancer health impacts from toxic air contaminants (TACs). An REL is used as an indicator of potential non-cancer health impacts and is defined as the concentration at which no adverse non-cancer health effects are anticipated.

RELs incorporate uncertainty factors to help ensure that the REL is protective for nearly all individuals, including sensitive populations.2 RELs (acute and chronic) have been developed for a number of TACs, exposure pathways, and exposure durations. However, OEHHA has not developed an acute REL for diesel particulate matter ( DPM); therefore, acute DPM impacts were not evaluated in the Health Risk Assessment and IS/MND . This is consistent with OEHHA Guidance and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) HARP2 Air Dispersion Modeling Program that was used in development of the proposed Project’s Health Risk Assessment summarized in the air quality section of the Draft IS/MND and found in Appendix B of the IS/MND.

Furthermore, it is not standard practice in CEQA documents or Health Risk Assessments to analyze air quality health risk impacts to future construction workers developing a proposed project. O n-site construction worker exposure to DPM and associated risk is the responsibility of the Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA strategies include engineering and administrative controls that minimize emissions and change the way work tasks are performed to reduce or eliminate hazards. 3 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) local risk and hazards significance thresholds apply to sensitive receptors only. BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as “Certain community members are more susceptible to poor air quality. These individuals, referred to as sensitive receptors, are typically children, the elderly, and those with preexisting serious health problems. Land uses where sensitive receptors are most likely to spend time include schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers and preschools, hospices, dormitories, prisons, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities. The risk and hazards thresholds of significance apply in determining whether a new source of pollution will result in unacceptable risks to the community. ”4 The Project’s Health Risk Assessment analyzed potential health impacts from construction and operation of the Project on nearby residents and off-site workers.

Health risk (cancer and non- cancer) impacts from DPM emissions resulting from construction of the proposed Project were evaluated in accordance with BAAQMD, OEHHA, and CARB Guidance. As shown on page 23 and 24 (Tables 6 and 7) of the Draft IS/MND, the Project would not expose nearby sensitive receptors or off-site workers to significant health risks as the Project would be below all BAAQMD health risk significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact.

2 OEHHA, Air Toxics Hot Spots, Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015, Accessed at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf 3 OSHA, Diesel Exhaust/Diesel Particulate Matter, January 2013, Accessed at:
https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA-3590.pdf 4 BAAQMD, 2022 CEQA Guidelines, April 20, 2023, Accessed at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california- environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines
112
P AGE RTC - 9

Response to Comment C-3
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA
) was available to the public during the full 30-day public review period. As stated on page 2 of the Notice of Intent to Consider Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Project, “Background and reference materials related to the IS/MND can be reviewed upon request to the City of Pittsburg's Planning Division.” The Notice of Intent was posted on the City’s website, at the County Clerk and on CEQAnet and the Phase I ESA was available as of the date of the Notice of Intent (October 13, 2023).

Response to Comment C-4
See Response to Comment B-2 regarding recent soil testing that occurred on Project site.

The CEC Phase I ESA identified Recognizable Environmental Conditions (RECs) within the greater parcel, but they were associated with the ditch dredging four decades ago, and past removal of USTs, which evidence suggests did not occur on the Project site (page 27-29 of the Phase I ESA) . The Draft IS/MND explains that while 2000 Loveridge Road may be listed as having previous environmental concerns, they did not involve the proposed Project site portion of that property . The soils excavated during the 1983 ditch dredging were removed, tested, and landfilled and thus, are not considered a source of contamination. The identified REC associated with offsite contaminants entering the Project site via the Caltrans surface water/highway runoff is an existing condition and if there were contamin ants in the surface/highway runoff, they would be confined to the ditch, which would not be disturbed or otherwise affected by the Project. Similar to the other RECs noted above, the nine petroleum USTs are present within the greater 2000 Loveridge Road parcel and are not within the Project site (As noted on page 58 of the Draft IS/MND). As stated on page 58 of the Draft IS/MND, there is no evidence presented in the Phase I indicating that the vacant portion of the parcel that is considered the Project site has been involved in the storage, accidental release, or production of hazardous waste or materials and that it could create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Response to Comment C-5
The City of Pittsburg Planning Division provided responses to DTSC’s comments on November 30, 2023 (reiterated in Responses to Comment Letter B above). DTSC concluded that the responses to the DTSC comment letter were adequate and useful in addressing soil remediation.5 See Responses to Comments B-2, B-3, B-4, and C-4.

The Draft IS/MND did not identify a potentially significant impact, thus the DTSC’s recommendation for additional soil sampling and to prepare an SMP would not be appropriate as mitigation measures .

However, the City will include DTSC’s recommendations as Conditions of Approval. DTSC’s comments are fully disclosed and responded to in Responses to Comment Letter B, above.

Response to Comment C-6
See Response to Comment B-2, B-3, B-4, C-4, and C-5, above.

As noted in Response to Comment B-2, the soil testing by BGG indicates that low levels of metals, diesel, and motor oil may be present in shallow soils within certain areas of the Project site. The soil samples containing diesel and motor oil were collected in an area of a previous stockpile observed on historical photographs. Therefore, it is possible that site grading for the proposed Project could encounter surface soils containing low levels of residual petroleum hydrocarbons and elevated metals. However, given the low concentrations detected, these soils would not represent a substantial hazard to site workers and, considering the proposed industrial land use and that the Project site would be covered with asphalt or

5 Kereazis, Dave. Department of Toxic Substances Control HWWP-Permitting (CEQA Unit), Email Communication, Friday December 15, 2023 8:31 AM.
113
P AGE RTC - 10

cement, the risk of future human and environmental exposure is low. BGG’s assessment did not provide evidence of a different or more severe site contamination condition compared with those identified in the Draft IS. No evidence was identified indicating a new or substantially more severe potentially significant impact. While no additional soils sampling is warranted, prior to project commencement, a Soil Management Plan, as requested by DTSC and discussed in Response to Comment B-3, would be in place to address and remedy contaminated soils if encountered during Project site grading.

Furthermore, BAAQMD’s basic BMPs for construction-related fugitive dust would be implemented through Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (see page 21 and 22 of the Draft IS/MND). These BMPs would prevent dust from contaminated soils, if encountered, from becoming airborne and leaving the Project site. O n-site
construction worker exposure to potentially contaminated soil and associated risk is the responsibility of the OSHA. As noted on page 9 of the IS/MND, the nearest sensitive land use (residents) are roughly 800 feet southwest of the project site. Based on the low concentrations detected, the application of BAAQMD’s BMPs, and the distance between the nearest sensitive receptors and the Project site (800 feet), the Project would not pose significant health impacts to the public from the disturbance of on-site soils.

Based on the above, there is no substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the proposed Project would result in potentially significant health impacts from disturbance of on-site soil contamination.

Response to Comment C-7
Comment noted. The comment provides information related to wetlands from the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP).

Response to Comment C-8
A jurisdictional delineation survey is not a CEQA requirement. The Project’s environmental setting (baseline physical conditions) was established through a reconnaissance-level site assessment of the Project site and surrounding property by Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting (ecologist Roxanne Foss) in June 2023, which followed previous surveys of the site in 2018 and 2019. While the Project is required to conduct all assessments necessary to comply with the HCP/NCCP, it is not required to do so during the CEQA process. The Project would avoid all wetlands and aquatic features identified in the reconnaissance- level site assessment conducted in June 2023 (this is illustrated in Figure 3 of Planning Survey Report found in Appendix C of the Draft IS/MND). As shown in Figure 3 of the Planning Survey Report, wetlands are just outside the permanent site footprint to west and the proposed temporary staging area west of the existing facility. Thus, to further ensure that the Project avoids all wetlands and aquatic features, Mitigation Measure BIO-6 (page 31 of the Draft IS/MND) requires an aquatic delineation survey prior to ground disturbing activities to ensure avoidance of these features. Note, this is already a requirement of the HCP/NCCP but was included as a mitigation measure to ensure implementation through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project.

In response to this comment, Mitigation Measure BIO -6 has been enhanced to contain specific performance standards and identify the types of actions that may achieve compliance with the performance standards (redesign of the Project site plan and/or temporary staging areas or obtain the necessary permits including wetlands compensatory mitigation). Incorporation of the enhanced mitigation measure into the Project will be required prior to adoption of the MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. The enhanced mitigation measure is equivalent or more effective than Mitigation Measure BIO-6 as it appeared in the Draft IS/MND and does not affect the impact conclusions in the IS/MND or require recirculation.

Mitigation Measure BIO-6 is revised as follows:

development of the Project will not avoid the aquatic features present onsite, the Applicant shall do one of the following:
1) Redesign the Project site plan and/or temporary staging areas to avoid the aquatic features onsite; or
2) Obtain the applicable permit of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to fill the aquatic features necessary to develop the Project if redesigning the Project site plan is not feasible.

In addition, the Project Applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures described in the HCP/NCCP to avoid and minimize impacts on wetlands and riparian woodland/scrub during construction activities:
a. All wetlands, ponds, streams, and riparian woodland/scrub to be avoided by covered activities will be temporarily staked in the field by a qualified biologist. b. Personnel conducting ground-disturbing activities within or adjacent to the buffer zone of wetlands, ponds, streams, or riparian woodland/scrub will be trained by a qualified biologist in these avoidance and minimization measures and the permit obligations of project proponents working under this HCP/NCCP. Vehicles and equipment will be parked on pavement, existing roads, and previously disturbed areas. c. Trash generated by covered activities will be promptly and properly removed from the site.
d. No construction or maintenance vehicles will be refueled within 200 feet of wetlands, ponds, streams, or riparian woodland/scrub unless a bermed and lined refueling area is constructed and hazardous material absorbent pads are available in the event of a spill.
e. Appropriate erosion-control measures (e.g., fiber rolls, filter fences, vegetative buffer strips) will be used on site to reduce siltation and runoff of contaminants into wetlands, ponds, streams, or riparian woodland/scrub. Filter fences and mesh will be of material that will not entrap reptiles and amphibians. Erosion control blankets shall be used as a last resort because of their tendency to biodegrade slowly and trap reptiles and amphibians. Erosion-control measures will be placed between the outer edge of the buffer and the project site.
f. Fiber rolls used for erosion control will be certified as free of noxious weed seed. g. Seed mixtures applied for erosion control will not contain invasive nonnative species, and will be composed of native species or sterile nonnative species. h. Where feasible, stream crossings will be located in stream segments without riparian vegetation, and bridge footings will be built outside the stream banks (i.e., clear span structures).
i. Herbicide will not be applied within 100 feet of wetlands, ponds, streams, or riparian woodland/scrub; however, where appropriate to control serious invasive plants, herbicides that have been approved for use by EPA in or adjacent to aquatic habitats may b e used as long as label instructions are followed and applications avoid or minimize impacts on covered species and their habitats. In seasonal or intermittent stream or wetland environments, appropriate herbicides may be applied during the dry season to control nonnative invasive species (e.g., yellow star- thistle). Herbicide drift should be minimized by applying the herbicide as close to the target area as possible.

Response to Comment C-9
As described in Response to Comment C
-8. Mitigation Measure BIO-6 has been enhanced to contain the applicable measures listed in Conservation Measure 2.12 of the HCP/NCCP. These measures would reduce/prevent direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and aquatic features. Note, these measures are a 115
P AGE RTC - 12

requirement of the HCP/NCCP but have been added to the mitigation measure to ensure implementation through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project.

As detailed on page 64 of the Draft IS/MND, implementation of the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project site
. The Project applicant would be required to prepare a
SWPPP, which would assure that no significant sedimentation occurs from project construction. The SWPPP must include site-specific erosion and sedimentation control practices and would limit the amount of runoff that may be directed offsite during construction (page 62-65 of the Draft IS/MND) . Once the Project is developed, stormwater would be retained onsite through a drainage trough beginning in the northeast corner of the site and ending in the southeast corner where it would connect to existing underground stormwater piping and enter existing catch basins associated with the other uses present on the parcel. A retaining wall would be developed along the perimeter of the site, which would further prevent indirect impacts to wetlands from runoff and sedimentation. Adherence to the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) and General Industrial Permit provisions and requirements would ensure post - construction stormwater discharges would not be increased and that pollutants would not be transported offsite in a manner that would degrade the water quality of receiving waters.

The Project site is on an industrial parcel that is already subject to noise from the existing facility. As noted on page 8 of the Planning Survey Report (Appendix C of the Draft IS/MND), the drainage features and seasonal wetlands on the parcel do not provide suitable breeding or migration habitat for the aquatic species that could be present in the study area. Potential noise effects were considered in the HCP/NCCP and necessary noise considerations were developed within the specific avoidance measures required by the HCP/NCCP, which were included as mitigation measures in the Draft IS/MND (See Mitigation Measures BIO-3 and BIO-4).

See Responses to Comments B-2, B-3, B-4, and C-4 regarding the Phase I ESA and contaminated soils or other hazards such as USTs.

Response to Comment C-10
See Responses to Comments C-8 and C-9. As described above in Responses to Comments C-8 and C- 9, above, Mitigation Measure BIO-6 has been enhanced and now includes the applicable measures listed in Conservation Measure 2.12 of the HCP/NCCP, including required erosion/sediment control measures.

Response to Comment C-11
See Responses to Comments C-7 through C-10.

Response to Comment C-12
See Responses to Comments C-1 through C-11.

116
117
118
119
120
121
ATTACHMENT 4
Surrounding Conditions Photos

Aerial of Subject Site & surroundings Aerial of Subject Site

View from Pittsburg Antioch Highway looking South

View from Pittsburg Antioch Highway looking West
122
ATTACHMENT 4
Surrounding Conditions Photos

View from California Avenue looking West

View from Loveridge Road looking East

View from Loveridge& California looking North
123
Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project–Vicinity Map Use Permit, Design Review, Variance (UP, DR, V)
AP-23-0046 2000 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg, California 94565 Assessor’s Parcel No. 073-190-035

Project Site
124
Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project–Aerial Map Use Permit, Design Review, Variance (UP, DR, V)
AP-23-0046 2000 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg, California 94565 Assessor’s Parcel No. 073-190-035

Project Site
125
Attachment 6
Development Review Design Guidelines
Oakstone Northern California Expansion Project, AP-23-0046 (UP, DR, V)

Page 1 of 4 ends

Pittsburg City CouncilDecember 16, 2024

Pittsburg City Council
December 16, 2024