Environmental impact analysis report from UC – Davis (repost)

Objective: The objective of the Proposed Project is to increase production of clean-burning gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel from Heavy Gas Oil (HGO) for the California market by upgrading the Refinery’s capability to process HGO.

Alternatives: In order to meet the terms with CEQA Section 6.1.1; Conoco Phillips proposed in its EIR four alternatives, including a no-project alternative, also required by CEQA. A short description follows.

• No project alternative: It would consist of the existing ConocoPhillips Refinery configuration and operation, together with on-going maintenance activities and other projects planned or currently underway. Beneath this alternative, the objectives of the project will not be achieved, instead of producing the HGO inside the refinery, the company would have to export to other refineries and the mentioned operation would require the use of 145 marine barge trips/year; increasing the marine transport.

• Reduced project alternative: the project proposed three different reduced project alternatives; the first one was the reduced HGO production only; with this option, many features and devices needed for the full project would be installed, however they would not work at full capacity. The second was a reduced hydrogen plant only, the main idea would be to construct a smaller hydrogen unit, nevertheless future growth of the refinery was not considered. The last one was a combined-reduced only that will be a combination of the two previous alternatives. The mentioned alternatives were not taken into account because they did not meet all the project objectives, even thought they would reduce some of the environmental impacts.

• Project at an alternate site: this alternative would involve the construction of a completely new facility, which in turn, would result in much greater environmental impacts.

• Environmental superior alternative: according to CEQA a superior alternative looks to reduce significantly or eliminate adverse environmental impacts. Nonetheless, the identified impacts of the proposed project were determined to be less than significant or that they can be minimized with the proposed mitigation measures. However the reduced project alternative could be considered as a superior one, but their tradeoffs were already mentioned.

Environmental impact evaluation: To evaluate the environmental impacts generated by the project, variables such as design, location, schedule and certainty were analyzed for the whole construction and operation process. According to the impacts analysis, no significant unavoidable impacts were identified.

Cumulative impacts: the EIR took into account to develop the cumulative impacts several local and regional planning documents, such as the Contra Costa County General Plan, Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and others. To determine the cumulative impacts the EIR methodology analyzed different categories including visual impacts, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, public health and safety, hydrology and water quality, noise, traffic and transport. The potentially significant cumulative impacts were determined as follows:

• Air quality: due to suspended and respirable particulate matter, NOx, SO2, VOC, and PM10 emissions during the construction and implementation of the project.

• Cultural resources: due to excavations, the possibility of finding undiscovered archeological and/or paleontological resources was taken into account.

• Noise: due to construction activities, the generation of irregular and/or temporal noise above existing ambient levels in the surrounding areas of the project site.

• Transportation: due to the construction of the proposed project and the possibility of overlapping with other construction projects delays on roadways and freeways were expected. Moreover, substantial damage or wear of public roadways might be another impact due to the truck traffic on area roadways

Conversely, after the mitigations measures proposed by the EIR, all the impacts were proven to be less than significant. The categories: public services, agricultural and mineral resources; were found to have no cumulative impacts.

Mitigation measures: The mitigation measures established in the EIR were basically related to the highest potential environmental impacts mentioned above. A summary of the most important measures is shown below:

• Air quality: dust abatement programs and control procedures were proposed to reduce PM10. Enhanced control measures were also taken; these measures included application of non-toxic soil stabilizer to inactive construction land, a limited vehicle speed of 15 mph, entrance through certain zones, installations of sandbags to prevent runoff to public roads and some other. Furthermore, specific procedures to control equipment exhaust emission were followed. Some of the measures included the use of the Best Management Construction Practice to avoid unnecessary emissions, the use of alternative fuels (i.e.: biodiesel) and properly maintain of construction equipment. The EIR mitigation measures also proposed to take a new NOx permit limit to achieve a reduction concentration of NOx by 1 ppm in the refinery steam power plant.

• Cultural resources: in case of any cultural discovery; the works within 100 feet of the project site would have to stop and Conoco-Phillips shall consult with Contra Costa County (CCC) and qualified archeologist or paleontologist the following steps.

• Noise: the measures included the well tuned and maintenance of the construction equipment, the use of noise reduction devices, controls the traffic flow and the access to the project site.

• Transportation: all traffic entering the project site would access from the north using Cummings Skyway to San Pablo Avenue. A report to the Public Work Department of CCC of the initial and final conditions of the roads used by the vehicles related to the project was proposed. Conoco-Phillips would repair the road damages and made an initial deposit of $250.000 to an account exclusively for road rehabilitation.

Comments: The final EIR presented in 2007 by Conoco-Phillips, incorporated the comments made by different agencies on the Draft EIR. Comments were submitted by the following agencies:
• California Energy Commission (CEC), Terrence O’Brien, Deputy Director, System Assessment and Facilities Siting Division, January 18, 2007
• California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), Bryan Much, Researcher I, January 19, 2007
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Jean Roggenkamp, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer, January 4, 2007
• San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), Linda Scourtis, Coastal Planner, December 22, 2006
• East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), Brad Olson, Environmental Programs Manager, January 3, 2007
• Bay Trail Project (BTP), Lee Chien Huo, Bay Trail Planner, January 22, 2007
• East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), William R. Kirkpatrick, Manager of Water Distribution Planning, December 29, 2006
• Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ABJC), Suma Peesapati, Attorney, and Petra Pless, January 22, 2007
• Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE), Adrienne L. Bloch, Kristen Boney, and Julia May, January 22, 2007
• Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Julie Teel, Staff Attorney, January 22, 2007
• Good Neighbor Agreement Community Signatories and Working Group (GNAC), H. Adams, et al., Received January 18, 2007
• Speakers at Public Hearing, December 14, 2006
• Ed Tannenbaum, Crockett resident
• Howard Adams, Crockett resident
• Mark Hughes, ConocoPhillips Refinery
• Jessica Tovar, Communities for a Better Environment
• Rene Leon, Rodeo resident
• Danielle Fugere, Crockett resident

The concerns raised by the public review of the EIR consisted essentially in the greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed development and the potential health risks to the community. Other concerns included increase of odors and flaring and construction emissions. It was claimed by some of the reviewers that these impacts were not adequately addressed in the draft EIR. To solve the mentioned comments, the final EIR proposed odor control measures such as the addition of a fourth odor abatement compressor (three already exist). According to the EIR, the existing system does not use continuous flaring, and this would continue to be the case after completion of the proposed project.

Conclusions: Conoco-Phillips stated that the final EIR addressed all concerns regarding pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Certification and permit for the EIR and project were approved by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on May 2007. On the other hand, a legal action was filled to appeal the project authorization (see legal actions involved) and the project was finally accepted in September 2007 after some environmental agreements between Conoco-Phillips and the people of California.

Legal actions involved: In May 2007, the Attorney General on behalf of the people of California filed an appeal to the Planning Commission’s approval of the project, on the basis that the EIR did not address the greenhouse gases issue appropriately. A later agreement was reached in September of the same year between the parties, in which Conoco-Phillips compromised to implement several measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and invest in environmental programs.
These actions included a state-wide inventory of refineries (due in December 2008), an investment of $7 million for offset projects, $2.8 million for reforestation in California, and $200,000 for restoration of the San Pablo Wetlands (Environmental Leader, 2007). Finally, the calciner at the Santa Maria Facility (current emissions of 70,000 tons of CO2) was to be deactivated. The agreement was signed on September 10, 2007.
All these measures would bring the Conoco-Phillips to compliance with the California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, sections 38500, the California Global Warming Solutions Act (“AB-32”).